NY court denies CRN’s motion for preliminary injunction

A federal court on Friday denied a request for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a New York statute that restricts minors’ access to certain dietary supplement products.

New York Assembly Bill A5610 takes effect on Monday, April 22, though two lawsuits challenging the statute and filed by industry trade associations remain alive.

Judge Andrew Carter in the Southern District of New York denied the Council for Responsible Nutrition’s request for a preliminary injunction, or what he characterized as “extraordinary relief.”

CRN “has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on a constitutional injury that would excuse this delay,” Carter wrote in the first paragraph of a 25-page opinion and order. “Moreover, granting a preliminary injunction is not in the public interest.”

The same judge has not yet ruled on a motion to dismiss CRN’s lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general.

A spokesperson for CRN confirmed its request was denied and said the association was in the process of reviewing the decision.

Earlier this week, a federal court in the Eastern District of New York paused court proceedings in a similar lawsuit filed by the Natural Products Association pending a decision by Carter in the CRN litigation. The legal claims in the lawsuits are not identical but both aim to overturn a statute that NPA’s complaint describes as “incredibly vague and ambiguous.”

Related:NPA litigation in NY stayed pending outcome on motions in CRN lawsuit

The bill establishes restrictions on the sale of over-the-counter diet pills and dietary supplements for weight loss or muscle building, though industry stakeholders maintain the bill is potentially far broader in scope. The New York attorney general has authority under the statute to request an injunction in court if it believes there has been a violation of the law, and a court may impose a civil penalty of up to $500 if it finds there has been a violation.

CRN has alleged the New York statute is “void for vagueness” under the First and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution, infringes on constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment and exceeds the state’s police powers. CRN also claimed the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which invalidates state laws contrary to federal statutes. NPA has alleged the law violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, the dormant commerce clause and supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution.