992 F.3d 694
8th Cir.2021Background
- Missouri enacted Mo. Rev. Stat. § 265.494(7) (2018), criminalizing “misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry,” with a class A misdemeanor penalty.
- Plaintiffs Tofurky (a plant‑based food maker) and the Good Food Institute filed a pre‑enforcement § 1983 challenge seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging the law targets plant‑based and lab‑grown meat substitutes and violates the First Amendment, due process, and the Dormant Commerce Clause.
- Missouri Department of Agriculture guidance suggested products with prominent plant‑based qualifiers and disclosures would not be referred for prosecution; Tofurky’s labels submitted to the court include terms like “vegetarian,” “veggie,” and “plant‑based.”
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction, concluding on the limited record that the Statute likely does not apply to Plaintiffs’ labels and so did not prohibit their commercial speech.
- The State intervened to defend the law after the local prosecutor declined; the appeal challenges the district court’s legal interpretation and seeks remand directing entry of a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Ripeness for pre‑enforcement challenge | Plaintiffs: Susan B. Anthony List standard satisfied; credible threat causes self‑censorship | State: Plaintiffs lack injury; speculative enforcement; not ripe | Court: Plaintiffs meet lenient pre‑enforcement standing and ripeness standards at this preliminary stage |
| Applicable First Amendment test | Plaintiffs: statute burdens speech and should be evaluated as content‑based; district court used too‑narrow test | State: commercial speech test (Central Hudson) applies; statute targets misleading commercial speech | Held: Central Hudson governs commercial‑speech challenge; district court did not err in applying it |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ labels are proscribed (statute’s scope / application) | Plaintiffs: statute could arguably prohibit use of meat‑terms to describe plant‑based products | State: Plaintiffs’ actual labels clearly disclose plant‑based nature and are not misleading | Held: On the limited record, district court reasonably concluded the Statute did not proscribe Plaintiffs’ submitted labels; Plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on the merits |
| Preliminary injunction factors (irreparable harm, balance of equities) | Plaintiffs: self‑censorship and chilling require injunction | State: no irreparable harm shown because labels are accurate; enforcement unlikely | Held: Because Plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success, district court did not abuse discretion in denying preliminary injunction; no need to reach other Dataphase factors further |
Key Cases Cited
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (commercial‑speech test for regulations burdening advertising)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (pre‑enforcement standing where threatened enforcement causes self‑censorship)
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (preliminary injunction factors framework)
- Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (heightened burden to show likelihood of prevailing when challenging a statute)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (standards for pre‑enforcement challenges involving threatened prosecution)
- Braden v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (distinguishing standing from merits in posture of litigation)