International Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Amestoy
Decision Date | 08 August 1996 |
Docket Number | D,No. 876,876 |
Citation | 92 F.3d 67 |
Parties | 24 Media L. Rep. 2089 INTERNATIONAL DAIRY FOODS ASSOCIATION; Milk Industry Foundation (MIF); International Ice Cream Association; National Cheese Institute; Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc. and National Food Processors Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jeffrey L. AMESTOY, as Attorney General of the State of Vermont and Leon C. Graves, Commissioner of Agriculture, Food and Markets of the State of Vermont, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 95-7819. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Steven J. Rosenbaum, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC (Sarah E. Taylor, Jonathan R. Galst, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Eileen I. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, Vermont (David M. Rocchio, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, Vermont, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before ALTIMARI, McLAUGHLIN and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-appellants International Dairy Foods Association, Milk Industry Foundation (MIF), International Ice Cream Association, National Cheese Institute, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc. and National Food Processors Association (collectively "appellants" or "dairy manufacturers") appeal from a decision of the district court (Murtha, C.J.), denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. 898 F.Supp. 246 (D.Vt.1995). The dairy manufacturers challenged the constitutionality of Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 6, § 2754(c) which requires dairy manufacturers to identify products which were, or might have been, derived from dairy cows treated with a synthetic growth hormone used to increase milk production. The dairy manufacturers alleged that the statute violated the United States Constitution's First Amendment and Commerce Clause.
Because we find that the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant preliminary injunctive relief to the dairy manufacturers on First Amendment grounds, we reverse and remand.
The factual background to this case is capably described in the district court's opinion, see 898 F.Supp. 246 (D.Vt.1995). We therefore summarize only those facts necessary to an understanding of our disposition.
In 1993, the federal Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the use of recombinant Bovine Somatotropin ("rBST") (also known as recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone ("rGBH")), a synthetic growth hormone that increases milk production by cows. It is undisputed that the dairy products derived from herds treated with rBST are indistinguishable from products derived from untreated herds; consequently, the FDA declined to require the labeling of products derived from cows receiving the supplemental hormone.
In April 1994, defendant-appellee the State of Vermont ("Vermont") enacted a statute requiring that "[i]f rBST has been used in the production of milk or a milk product for retail sale in this state, the retail milk or milk product shall be labeled as such." Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 6, § 2754(c). The State of Vermont's Commissioner of Agriculture ("Commissioner") subsequently promulgated regulations giving those dairy manufacturers who use rBST four labeling options, among them the posting of a sign to the following effect in any store selling dairy products:
rBST Information
THE PRODUCTS IN THIS CASE THAT CONTAIN OR MAY CONTAIN MILK FROM rBST-TREATED COWS EITHER (1) STATE ON THE PACKAGE THAT rBST HAS BEEN OR MAY HAVE BEEN USED, OR (2) ARE IDENTIFIED BY A BLUE SHELF LABEL LIKE THIS
[BLUE RECTANGLE]
OR (3) A BLUE STICKER ON THE PACKAGE LIKE THIS. [BLUE DOT]
The United States Food and Drug Administration has determined that there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows. It is the law of Vermont that products made from the milk of rBST-treated cows be labeled to help consumers make informed shopping decisions.
(6 V.S.A. Section 2754)
Adopted Rules (rBST Notification and Labeling Regulations Relating to Milk and Milk Products) of Vermont Dep't of Agriculture, Food and Markets, § 3.1b ("Vt.Regs."). Failure to comply with the statute and companion regulations subjects manufacturers to civil, see Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, ch. 63 (Consumer Fraud Act), § 2451 et seq. [Add. to Blue Br. 12-13], as well as criminal, see Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 6, ch. 151 (Supervision, Inspection and Licensing of Dairy Operations), § 2671 et seq., penalties.
Appellants filed suit in April 1994, asserting that the statute was unconstitutional. In June 1995, the dairy manufacturers moved for preliminary injunctive relief, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The dairy manufacturers alleged that the Vermont statute (1) infringed their protected rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution and (2) violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. 1, § 8. Following an extensive hearing, the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Murtha, C.J.), denied appellants' motion. See 898 F.Supp. at 254. The dairy manufacturers now appeal.
Because we find that the dairy manufacturers are entitled to an injunction on First Amendment grounds, we do not reach their claims made pursuant to the Commerce Clause.
Generally, preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate when the movant shows "(a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief." Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam); see also Union Carbide Agr. Prods. Co. v. Costle, 632 F.2d 1014, 1017 (2d Cir.1980) () , cert. denied, 450 U.S. 996, 101 S.Ct. 1698, 68 L.Ed.2d 196 (1981). However, because the injunction at issue stays "government action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory ... scheme," this Court has determined that the movant must satisfy the more rigorous "likelihood of success prong." Able v. United States, 44 F.3d 128, 131-32 (2d Cir.1995); see Plaza Health Laboratories, Inc. v. Perales, 878 F.2d 577, 580 (2d Cir.1989).
We review the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, see Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 690 F.2d 312, 315 (2d Cir.1982), and will reverse the district court only if it relied on clearly erroneous findings of fact, misapprehended the law, or erred in formulating the injunction, see Blum v. Schlegel, 18 F.3d 1005, 1010 (2d Cir.1994).
Focusing principally on the economic impact of the labeling regulation, the district court found that appellants had not demonstrated irreparable harm to any right protected by the First Amendment. We disagree.
Irreparable harm is "injury for which a monetary award cannot be adequate compensation." See Jackson Dairy, Inc., 596 F.2d at 72. It is established that "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2690, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976); see Paulsen v. County of Nassau, 925 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir.1991) ( ); Deeper Life Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Board of Ed., 852 F.2d 676, 679 (2d Cir.1988) ( ). Because the statute at issue requires appellants to make an involuntary statement whenever they offer their products for sale, we find that the statute causes the dairy manufacturers irreparable harm.
Quoting Hohe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69, 72-73 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 848, 110 S.Ct. 144, 107 L.Ed.2d 102 (1989), the district court rejected this claim, stating that:
"the assertion of First Amendment rights does not automatically require a finding of irreparable injury, thus entitling a plaintiff to a preliminary injunction if he shows a likelihood of success on the merits." 868 F.2d at 72-73.
Ordinarily, it is the purposeful suppression of speech which constitutes irreparable harm. Compliance with the Vermont Labeling Law does not prohibit the plaintiffs from disseminating a message. Instead, it requires the plaintiffs to truthfully disclose the method used in producing their product. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find that the plaintiffs' assertion of a First Amendment violation leads ineluctably to the conclusion that they will suffer irreparable harm.
898 F.Supp. at 251-52 (citations omitted).
We conclude, however, that the manufacturers have carried their burden of establishing irreparable harm. The wrong done by the labeling law to the dairy manufacturers' constitutional right not to speak is a serious one that was not given proper weight by the district court. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 1435, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) (); West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 633, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1183, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) (); see also Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enter., 471 U.S. 539, 559, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2230, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) ( )(quoting Estate of Hemingway v. Random House,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Connecticut Bar Ass'n v. U.S.
... ... of fact as well as statements of opinion." International Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67, 71 (2d ... ...
-
Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Mgmt., LLC
... ... [Citation.]" ( DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Bunner (2003) 31 Cal.4th 864, 876, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 69, ... just recently, the high court in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, ... 2055, 161 L.Ed.2d 896.) In United States v. United Foods, Inc. (2001) 533 U.S. 405, 121 S.Ct. 2334, 150 L.Ed.2d ... distinguished its prior holding in International Dairy Foods Assn. v. Amestoy (2d Cir.1996) 92 F.3d 67 ( Amestoy ... ...
-
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
... ... ; Population Connection; Service Employees International Union; Ibis Reproductive Health; MergerWatch; Naral Pro ... enjoyment of a right to privacy, California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 6567, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 15191520, 39 ... Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67, 71 (2d Cir.1996) ... ...
-
Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, Snack Food Ass'n, Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n, & Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Sorrell
... 102 F.Supp.3d 583 GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and National Association of Manufacturers, Plaintiffs, v. William H ... Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67 (2d Cir.1996) [hereinafter IDFA ], applies. c. Whether Act 120's GE Disclosure ... ...
-
Food Mislabeling Litigation And The Success Of Preemption And First Amendment Defenses
...and labels. The "freedom not to speak" defense was tested in the 1996 case of International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1996). After Vermont passed a statute requiring the labeling of milk products from cows treated with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), a ......
-
Enforcing an Unenforceable Law: the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard
...(last visited Jan. 10, 2018).74. See Strom, supra note 9. 75. See, e.g., Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67, 74 (2d Cir. 1996).76. See Shanor, supra note 16, at 166.77. See id. at 171.78. See id. at 135, 172, 174. Mandatory disclosures are considered "lighter-touch regulation" b......
-
The Compelled Commercial Speech Cases: Why Not Just Flip a Coin?
..."rBST' treatment refers to recombinant Bovine Somotropin, a synthetic hormone growth stimulant. See Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67, 69-70 (2d Cir. 1996). Query whether even the bare "r," or the "recombinant," term by even itself would be typically understood by consumers in ......
-
Throw Another Cloned Steak on the Barbie: Examining the Fda's Lack of Authority to Impose Mandatory Labeling Requirements for Cloned Beef
...of the manufacturer's First Amendment right not to speak"). For more information, see generally Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67 (1996); Stauber v. Shalala, 895 F. Supp. 1178 (1995); Lisa M. Fealk-Stickler, Regulating the Regulators: The Impact of the FDA Regulation on Corpora......
-
Reexamining the Labeling for Biotechnology in Foods: the Species Connection
...v. Shalala, 895 F. Supp. 1178, 1193 (W.D. Wis. 1995). 11. See discussion infra Section III.B. 12. Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1996). 13. Draft Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering,......