2 A

SS

’

N DES

É

LEVEURS DE

C

ANARDS V

.

B

ECERRA

SUMMARY

*

Preemption / Poultry Products Inspection Act

The panel reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs who challenged California Health and Safety Code § 25982, a provision that bans the sale of products made from force-fed birds, su ch as foie gras; vacated the district court’s permanent injunction; and remanded for further proceedings. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ express preemption argument - that California’s sales ban was expressly preempted because the Poultry Products Inspection Act (“PPIA”) prohibited states from imposing “ingredient requirements” that were “in addition to, or different than,” the federal law and its regulations. 21 U.S.C. § 467e. The panel held that section 25982 was not expressly preempted. Specifically, the panel held that the ordinary meaning of “ingredient” and the purpose and scope of the PPIA made clear that “ingredient requirements” pertain to the physical components that comprise a poultry product, not animal husbandry or feeding practices. The panel held that California law did not impose a preempted ingredient requirement, and section 25982 was not preempted by the PPIA even if it functioned as a total ban on foie gras. The panel also rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the PPIA impliedly preempted section 25982 under the doctrines of field and obstacle preemption. First, under the

*

This summary const itutes no part of the opini on of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 15-55192, 09/15/2017, ID: 10582255, DktEntry: 48-1, Page 2 of 26