Federal Court Preliminarily Enjoins Texas Labeling Law

As we previously reported, in June 2025, Texas enacted a labeling law requiring a warning statement on any food and beverage containing one of 44 specified substances.  We indicated that such state law initiatives might well be challenged by industry.

So it did not come as a surprise when, in December 2025, a group of food industry trade associations, including the American Beverage Association, the National Confectioners Association, and the Consumer Brands Association, filed a complaint challenging the law.  Plaintiffs asserted that the Texas law violates the First Amendment by forcing companies to convey misleading, inaccurate, and non-scientific information, as FDA has deemed the ingredients safe.  Plaintiffs further alleged that the Texas law is preempted by federal law, is void for vagueness, and violates the dormant Commerce Clause by forcing businesses to revise their labels to meet Texas’s unique rules.   The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and the Goldwater Institute filed amicus briefs.

On December 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The District Court heard arguments on February 3, 2026.  In review of a motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court considers various factors, namely: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) possible irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, (3) whether the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs any harm to the defendant, and (4) the public interest.  Based on its review of these factors, on February 11, the Court granted a preliminary injunction because “Plaintiffs ha[d] shown that they are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that [the Texas labeling law] violates the First Amendment by unconstitutionally compelling speech.”  Although the Court recognized that the warning served an interest, it concluded that “the State could have spoken itself by conducting an advertising campaign but has not done so.”  Moreover, the State had not shown that “such campaign would be ineffective for advancing the substantial interest of promoting public health.”

The Court found that at this [preliminary] stage, Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their vagueness challenge and their preemption claims.

So, what does this mean?  It is important to recognize that a preliminary injunction provides temporary relief.  It is granted only when the Court believes that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on this claim. Texas is enjoined from enforcing the warning label requirement against the Plaintiff associations and their members while the lawsuit is ongoing.  Texas may choose to appeal the decision.  But in any case, right now the implementation of law is stopped.  If the State decides to appeal the Court’s decision to grant the temporary injunction, the preliminary injunction remains in effect while the appeal is pending.  As a result, the compliance date of January 2027 likely will be postponed.

So far, no legal challenge has been brought against the Louisiana labeling law.  We will be monitoring further activity by various states and industry.