## Facts

- Cavel International, Inc. operated the only U.S. facility slaughtering horses for meat intended for human consumption, located in DeKalb, Illinois.
- The plant slaughtered roughly 40,000–60,000 horses annually; all meat was exported for human consumption, principally to European markets.
- Illinois amended its Horse Meat Act to prohibit slaughtering a horse when the actor knows or should know the meat will be used for human consumption, and to prohibit the knowing import or export of horse meat for human consumption.
- Violations were made felonies, and the Illinois Department of Agriculture was directed to revoke the license of violators.
- The statute did not ban slaughter for non-human uses (such as pet food or zoo feed).
- Cavel alleged enforcement would force it to shut down and sought to enjoin state officials from enforcing the amendments.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois’s prohibition on slaughtering horses for meat for human consumption, including its export-related provisions, violates the dormant Foreign Commerce Clause by impermissibly burdening foreign commerce.
2. Whether the statute is unconstitutional on other grounds, including regulatory takings or substantive due process.
3. Whether Cavel was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief pending resolution of its constitutional claims.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief and upheld the statute.
- The court held the amendments did not violate the dormant Foreign Commerce Clause because they regulated in-state conduct based on non-protectionist police-power interests and did not interfere with an identified federal foreign-commerce policy.
- The court rejected Cavel’s takings and due process theories, concluding the law was a permissible public-welfare regulation even if it eliminated Cavel’s business model.
- Because Cavel failed on the merits, it was not entitled to an injunction despite claimed irreparable economic harm.

## Legal Principles

- A state law that incidentally affects exports can be valid under the dormant Foreign Commerce Clause when it regulates in-state conduct, is not protectionist, and does not create a material risk of undermining the federal government’s ability to speak with one voice in foreign commerce.
- Moral and animal-welfare judgments are legitimate bases for state police-power regulation; a non-discriminatory ban on a locally conducted activity is not invalid merely because its primary market is foreign.
- Under commerce-clause balancing (including Pike-style balancing), substantial local interests may justify incidental burdens on commerce when the law does not discriminate against interstate or foreign commerce and no conflicting federal policy is shown.
- A regulation that prohibits a particular use of property for public-welfare reasons does not necessarily constitute a compensable taking, even if it effectively ends a specific business.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires a likelihood of success on the merits; severe economic impact alone does not justify an injunction against enforcement of a valid statute.

## Conclusion

Illinois could prohibit horse slaughter for human consumption and related export conduct as a non-protectionist exercise of state police power grounded in moral and animal-welfare concerns, and the resulting burden on foreign commerce and Cavel’s business did not render the statute unconstitutional or warrant injunctive relief.


Cavel International, Inc. v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2007)