The U.S. Supreme Court issued a trio of opinions on Friday that further narrows the reach of federal agencies and clarifies the powers of lower courts to review administrative decisions. In the most closely watched case, the justices ruled 7–2 that vape shops and other downstream businesses are "adversely affected" under the Tobacco Control Act and may seek judicial review of Food and Drug Administration orders denying applications to market e-cigarettes. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority in FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., said nothing in the statute confines challenges to manufacturers alone, rejecting the government’s attempt to limit standing and its separate plea to curb perceived forum shopping. The decision paves the way for tobacco companies to press their claims in circuits viewed as more sympathetic to industry arguments, complicating the FDA’s ongoing crackdown on flavored products popular with teenagers. In a separate 6–3 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court held that the Hobbs Act does not block U.S. district courts from questioning Federal Communications Commission interpretations during enforcement actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson extends last year’s move away from broad judicial deference to agencies by affirming trial-level authority to scrutinize FCC orders, even when those orders have already become final. The Court also tightened the rules governing revocation of supervised release. By a 7–2 vote in Esteras v. United States, the justices said district judges may consider only forward-looking aims—deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation—when sentencing defendants for release violations, excluding retributive factors such as the seriousness of the original offense. Taken together, the decisions underscore a continuing shift by the Court toward expanding judicial oversight of federal regulators while circumscribing both agency discretion and, in the criminal context, the grounds for imposing additional punishment.