CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — The Atlantic Coast Conference fined four of its schools on Monday for scuffles that broke out during rivalry week in college football, which had a rash of fights between players who attempted to plant flags and other team symbols on their rivals' fields.
North Carolina and N.C. State were fined for a brawl that started when Wolfpack players attempted to plant a flag on North Carolina's field after beating the Tar Heels 35-30 on Saturday. Virginia and Virginia Tech were fined for a pregame scuffle.
The ACC said the teams' actions violated the league's sportsmanship policy and called what happen at both games unacceptable. The league did not disclose the amount of the fines, but said they would be the maximum allowed by league bylaws. The money collected from the fines will go into the ACC’s postgraduate scholarship account.
At North Carolina, the teams had to be separated near midfield. The brawl overshadowed coach Mack Brown's final game.
At Blacksburg, players from the Cavaliers and Hokies mixed it up during pregame warmups and had to be separated.
The Big Ten Conference fined Michigan and Ohio State $100,000 each on Sunday for a fight that broke out in Columbus, Ohio, after Wolverines players attempted to plant their flag at midfield. That one had to be broken up by police officers, who deployed pepper spray to quell the melee. One officer suffered a head injury when he was “trampled” and was taken to a hospital, a police official said. The officer has since been released.
Arizona State defensive lineman Jacob Rich Kongaika tried to plant a team trident in the middle of Arizona’s logo after a 49-7 win over the Wildcats.
Florida edge rusher George Gumbs Jr. planted a flag on Florida State’s logo after a 31-11 win, sparking another melee.
Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football
North Carolina State players (in red) and North Carolina players (in blue) get into a scuffle after an NCAA college football game Saturday, Nov. 30, 2024, in Chapel Hill, N.C. (AP Photo/Chris Seward)
WASHINGTON (AP) — A majority of Supreme Court justices didn't seem convinced Monday that federal regulators misled companies as they refused to allow them to sell sweet flavored vaping products following a surge in teen e-cigarette use.
The court did raise questions about the Food and Drug Administration crackdown that included denials of more than a million nicotine products formulated to taste like fruit, dessert or candy. Teen vaping use has since dropped to a decade low, but the agency could change its approach after the inauguration next month of President-elect Donald Trump, who has promised to “save” vaping.
Vape companies have long marketed their products as a way to help adults quit traditional cigarettes, and say the FDA changed its standards with little warning as blocked the sale of over a million new flavored products.
Justice Elena Kagan, though, was skeptical.
“I guess I’m not really seeing what the surprise is here,” she said. “You knew what the FDA’s point of view was ... that blueberry vapes are really problematic in terms of youth smoking."
The FDA was slow to regulate the now multibillion-dollar vaping market, and even years into the crackdown flavored vapes that are technically illegal nevertheless remain widely available.
The agency says the vaping companies were denied because they couldn't show flavored vapes had a net public benefit, as laid out in the law. It has approved some tobacco-flavored vapes, and recently allowed its first menthol-flavored electronic cigarettes for adult smokers.
The issue came before the high court when the agency appealed a decision from the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals tossing out one of its denials.
While other lower courts rebuffed vaping company lawsuits, the 5th Circuit sided with Dallas-based company Triton Distribution. The decision allowed the sale of e-juices like “Jimmy The Juice Man in Peachy Strawberry," and “Mother's Milk and Cookies” which are heated by an e-cigarette to create an inhalable aerosol.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the FDA process had given the companies a fair chance to make their claims, given that their businesses were at stake.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh also expressed concern about what recourse companies have if agencies issue misleading guidance, though he also elicited that the FDA wasn't required to issue the guidance it gave in the vaping case. “I'm trying to figure out what the legal error is here,” he said.
The conservative-majority court has overall been skeptical of the power of federal regulators, including by striking down the so-called Chevron doctrine that had judges deferring to agencies' interpretation of the law.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the vaping companies wanted the court to take that concept a step further. “It’s almost a reverse Chevron deference, except we're deferring to the applicant," she said.
The court is expected to decide the case in the coming months.
FILE - The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, Nov. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
FILE - A high school student uses a vaping device near a school campus in Cambridge, Mass., April 11, 2018. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File)
