American Meat Institute v. USDA

A federal statute required country-of-origin labels on foods, including some meat products. In 2013, at Congress’s direction, the secretary of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (defendant) promulgated a rule implementing the labeling requirement. Country-of-origin labeling requirements have a long history in the United States, and the food-labeling requirement was intended to (1) allow consumers to choose American-produced food products, (2) satisfy consumers’ interest in knowing country-of-origin information, and (3) address consumers’ health concerns and market impacts that could arise following outbreaks of foodborne illness. A group of meat-production trade associations called the American Meat Institute (AMI) (plaintiff) brought an action against the USDA, asserting that the labeling rule violated the AMI’s First Amendment free-speech rights by requiring the AMI to disclose country-of-origin information to meat retailers. A 1985 Supreme Court decision, Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, had established that a commercial actor’s free-speech rights are protected if government-imposed disclosure requirements are reasonably related to a substantial government interest in preventing consumer deception (the Zauderer test). The AMI argued that the Zauderer test was inapplicable to the country-of-origin disclosure requirement because the requirement was not based on a government interest in preventing deception. The AMI asserted that the applicable test was the test for prohibitions on commercial speech articulated in the Supreme Court’s 1980 decision in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. The AMI sought injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the country-of-origin disclosure requirement, but the federal district court denied relief. On appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Zauderer test applied to government interests beyond preventing consumer deception. The appellate court then agreed to rehear the case en banc and vacated the panel’s judgment.