On March 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected an effort to preliminarily enjoin Florida’s ban on lab‑grown meat. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) does not preempt the state law because the outright ban on lab-grown meat does not regulate poultry facilities, operations, or ingredients.

Key Holdings and Court’s Reasoning

Upside Foods Inc. (Upside) produces lab-grown chicken and has secured federal approvals from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sell its product. Upside sought to sell its product in Florida. Florida’s SB 1084, however, imposes criminal and civil penalties on companies that manufacture, sell, hold, or distribute lab-grown meat in the state.

Upside moved to preliminarily enjoin SB 1084. Upside argued that, because USDA has determined its lab-grown chicken is a regulated poultry product and has approved its labels and granted inspection, Florida’s ban is preempted by the PPIA’s express preemption provisions. The district court disagreed, denying the preliminary injunction and finding that Upside is unlikely to succeed on its preemption claims.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on appeal. After addressing a number of threshold issues, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court that Florida’s ban on lab-grown meat falls outside both of the PPIA’s express preemption clauses.

  1. Facilities Preemption Provision: The PPIA’s facilities provision preempts state laws that impose requirements “with respect to premises, facilities, and operations of any official establishment” that are different from or in addition to federal requirements. 21 U.S.C. § 467e. The court found that an outright ban on the manufacture or sale of lab-grown meat does not directly regulate onsite operations and therefore falls outside the facilities preemption provision.
  2. Ingredients Preemption Provision: The PPIA’s ingredients provision preempts state “ingredient requirements” that differ from federal requirements. 21 U.S.C. § 467e. Here again, the court concluded that a categorical prohibition on lab-grown meat does not dictate the ingredients that must be included in a poultry product; it removes the product from the market entirely. Thus, the ingredients preemption provision does not apply.

Having determined that Upside is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its preemption theory, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction. In reaching its decision, the court relied primarily on the language of the relevant statutes but also favorably cited decisions from the Fifth and Seventh Circuits upholding as non-preempted state bans on horsemeat and a decision from the Ninth Circuit upholding a state ban on foie gras produced by force-feeding birds.

Why It Matters

The decision has significant implications at the intersection of federal food regulation, state police powers, and evolving food technologies such as lab-grown meat:

  • Narrower path for preemption challenges to state product bans. The court’s narrow reading of the PPIA’s facilities and ingredients preemption provisions reinforces a line of cases holding that federal inspection regimes do not require states to allow every federally regulated product onto their shelves. According to these decisions, so long as a state does not directly regulate plant premises, facilities, operations, or ingredients, it may adopt categorical bans on certain types of meat or production methods without triggering express preemption under the PPIA or the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).
  • Lab-grown meat companies face potential patchwork risk. For companies developing lab-grown meat or similar products, the decision illustrates the risk of a state‑by‑state regulatory patchwork. States concerned about economic, environmental, or cultural impacts of new food technologies may view this decision as confirmation that product bans can be structured to avoid PPIA preemption. Companies need to plan for uneven market availability, carefully assess where and how they launch, and account for the possibility that certain jurisdictions may remain off‑limits absent legislative change.
  • Compliance and litigation strategy considerations. From a compliance perspective, the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion reinforces that preemption challenges to state product bans under the PPIA will face an uphill climb, particularly where the state law is framed as a categorical ban on sale or distribution. Regulated entities should consider:
    • Treating federal approval as one step in a broader, multijurisdictional regulatory strategy rather than a guarantee of uniform nationwide access;
    • Monitoring legislative and regulatory developments at the state level that target lab-grown meat or similar products;
    • Engaging with state policymakers to advocate on behalf of their business; and
    • Evaluating the strength of PPIA or FMIA preemption challenges based on circuit precedent, while also considering additional challenges under both state and federal constitutional law.