Upside Foods Inc v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture an

── Upside Foods Inc v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture an ── Case No.: 24-13640 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 23, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-13640 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2026 Page: 1 of 33 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13640 ____________________ UPSIDE FOODS INC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE ATTORNEY, THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, STATE ATTORNEY, THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, STATE ATTORNEY, 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 24-13640 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2026 Page: 2 of 33 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13640 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:24-cv-00316-MW-MAF ____________________ Before NEWSOM and BRASHER, Circuit Judges, and HUCK, ∗ District Judge. BRASHER, Circuit Judge: The question in this appeal is whether the Poultry Products Inspection Act preempts a Florida law that bans the sale of lab- grown chicken. Florida’s SB 1084 outlaws the manufacture, distri- bution, and sale of all lab-grown meat in the state. Fla. Stat. § 500.452(1)–(6). Upside Foods, Inc. is a startup based in California that makes lab-grown meat, including chicken, and would like to distribute and sell its chicken product in Florida. Upside has chal- lenged SB 1084 as preempted under the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and has moved to preliminarily enjoin its enforce- ment. The district court denied Upside’s motion, ruling that Upside was unlikely to succeed on its preemption claims because a ban on lab-grown chicken is not equivalent to a regulation of Upside’s in- gredients, premises, facilities, or operations. We must wade through a morass of justiciability and other preliminary issues be- fore we can reach the merits. But the bottom line is that we agree with the district court. Because Florida’s ban on lab-grown meat ∗ Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern Dis- trict of Florida, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 24-13640 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2026 Page: 3 of 33 24-13640 Opinion of the Court 3 does not regulate Upside’s ingredients, premises, facilities, or oper- ations, federal law does not preempt SB 1084. Accordingly, we af- firm. I. We begin by summarizing the relevant provisions of the Poultry Products Inspection Act before examining the origins of this lawsuit and tracing its procedural history. A. Congress enacted the Poultry Products Inspection Act in 1957 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish uniform federal standards for poultry products, 21 U.S.C. §§ 451, 455–57, and to inspect poultry products to prevent them from being “adul- terated or misbranded.” Id. § 452. To help the Secretary implement these uniform standards, the PPIA contains two express preemp- tion provisions: the Ingredients Provision and the Facilities Provi- sion. The