## Facts

- California enacted Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25980–25984 to address force-feeding birds to enlarge their livers.
- Section 25981 banned force-feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging its liver beyond normal size.
- Section 25982 banned selling in California any product resulting from force-feeding a bird for that purpose; the ban took effect July 1, 2012 after an extended grace period.
- Plaintiffs included a foie gras producers’ association, a foie gras producer, and a California restaurant group affected by the sales ban.
- Plaintiffs sued after the sales ban took effect; initial due process and Commerce Clause claims were dismissed.
- Plaintiffs amended to assert that the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), including its express preemption clause, preempted § 25982.
- The district court held § 25982 expressly preempted, entered summary judgment for plaintiffs, and permanently enjoined enforcement.
- California’s Attorney General appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether § 25982 is expressly preempted by the PPIA provision barring state “marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements” different from or in addition to federal requirements.
2. Whether the PPIA occupies the field of poultry-product “ingredients” or related regulation such that § 25982 is field-preempted.
3. Whether § 25982 is obstacle-preempted because it interferes with Congress’s objectives in the PPIA regarding inspected poultry products.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for plaintiffs, vacated the permanent injunction, and remanded.
- The court held § 25982 was not expressly preempted because it regulates a production method (force-feeding) rather than the physical components of a poultry product.
- The court held the PPIA does not occupy the field of poultry husbandry or production methods, so field preemption did not apply.
- The court held § 25982 did not frustrate the PPIA’s objectives; federal inspection approval does not create a right to sell the product in every state.

## Legal Principles

- PPIA express preemption of “ingredient requirements” reaches state rules regulating the physical composition of poultry products, not state restrictions tied to animal-raising or feeding methods.
- Field preemption requires clear congressional intent; the PPIA’s inspection and labeling framework does not show an intent to displace state regulation of husbandry practices.
- A state sales restriction may coexist with federal inspection and labeling requirements when it does not impose additional or different federally regulated requirements and does not conflict with a federal mandate.
- States retain police-power authority to regulate in-state sales for purposes such as preventing animal cruelty, absent a direct conflict with federal law.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that California’s ban on selling products derived from force-fed birds was not preempted by the PPIA because it targeted production methods rather than product ingredients or federally governed labeling and inspection requirements, and it did not obstruct Congress’s objectives.


Ass’n des Éleveurs de Canards & d’Oies du Que. v. Becerra, 870 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2017)