Supreme Court Declines CRN's Challenge to New York Supplement Age-Restriction Law

The US Supreme Court will not hear the Council for Responsible Nutrition's (CRN) challenge to a New York law that restricts sales of certain dietary supplements to anyone under 18, the trade association said in an October 6, 2026, statement.¹ The Court rejected CRN's petition for certiorari in Council for Responsible Nutrition v. James (No. 25-1145), which asked the justices to review a Second Circuit ruling that upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction against New York General Business Law § 391-oo. CRN says the dispute now goes back to the district court. The organization had filed its petition in March.²

Steve Mister, CRN president and CEO, expressed disappointment in the Court’s decision. “The Court’s decision not to hear the case is not a ruling on the merits of our arguments, and it does not change our view that public-health policy should be grounded in evidence rather than assumptions about lawful products,” he explained.

What Does the New York Law Do?

The statute restricts sales to minors of dietary supplements that are labeled, marketed, or otherwise represented for weight loss or muscle building, according to CRN.

CRN has maintained that the law casts too wide a net, and that New York has not shown that the lawful supplements it covers cause the harms it cites. It has described the statute as a content-based restriction on commercial speech.²

What Was CRN's Argument at the Supreme Court?

In an April interview with Nutritional Outlook, Megan Olsen, CRN's senior vice president and general counsel, said the law regulates by marketing claims and not by ingredients, and that New York turned to speech after the governor vetoed an earlier ingredient-based bill over resource concerns.² She said the Second Circuit deferred to the legislature without testing whether the law materially advances its goal or is narrowly drawn, which she called "very dangerous precedent."

Olsen also said CRN's research found no link between supplements and eating disorders, a position that other states' rationales dispute. California's governor's office, for example, cited figures indicating that youth who use over-the-counter diet pills are 6 times more likely than nonusers to be diagnosed with an eating disorder within 3 years.³

In a July interview, Mister called the New York law "a blatant violation of the First Amendment."⁴

What Is CRN Saying Now?

In the October 6 statement, Mister highlighted the efforts from the organization. “Sometimes the importance of a fight is measured not only by whether you win a particular ruling, but by whether you are willing to stand up when an important principle is at stake,” he explained. “Policymakers should be expected to demonstrate that restrictions on lawful products, especially those that infringe on lawful commercial speech, are supported by sound evidence and are appropriately tailored to the problem they are trying to solve.” The association said several outside organizations filed amicus briefs urging the Court to take the case, though it did not name them.

CRN also pointed to California's AB 2030, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed on September 28 and which similarly restricts sales of supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to consumers under 18.¹ CRN opposed that bill and warned that its broad definitions could limit access to a range of lawful products.

CRN stated that it shares policymakers' goal of protecting young people and addressing eating disorders, and it will continue working with lawmakers and regulators on what it calls targeted, science-based measures.

References

1. Council for Responsible Nutrition. CRN disappointed Supreme Court declines review of New York supplement age-restriction law. Press release. October 6, 2026. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.crnusa.org/newsroom/crn-disappointed-supreme-court-declines-review-new-york-supplement-age-restriction-law
2. Olsen M, Saraceno N. Regulating marketing claims on dietary supplements: the effect on commercial speech. Nutritional Outlook. April 24, 2026. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.nutritionaloutlook.com/view/regulating-marketing-claims-on-dietary-supplements-the-effect-on-commercial-speech
3. McEvoy E. California Governor signs AB 2030, restricting minors' access to diet supplements. Nutritional Outlook. September 28, 2026. Updated September 29, 2026. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.nutritionaloutlook.com/view/california-governor-signs-ab-2030-restricting-minors-access-diet-supplements
4. Mister S, Saraceno N. A health claims lawsuit, a Supreme Court bid, and beyond. Nutritional Outlook. July 8, 2026. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.nutritionaloutlook.com/view/health-claims-lawsuit-supreme-court-bid