## Facts

- Chicago enacted an ordinance prohibiting any “food-dispensing establishment” from selling foie gras within city limits, punishable by fines of $250–$500 per violation.
- Foie gras is produced from the enlarged liver of ducks or geese through force-feeding, a practice the City viewed as inhumane.
- No foie gras was produced in Chicago or Illinois; the foie gras sold in Chicago was produced out of state or imported.
- The Illinois Restaurant Association and a Chicago restaurant challenged the ordinance, alleging it exceeded Chicago’s home rule authority, was federally preempted by federal food regulation, and unlawfully burdened interstate and foreign commerce.
- After plaintiffs added a federal Commerce Clause claim, the case proceeded in federal court on the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

## Issues

1. Whether Chicago’s home rule authority under the Illinois Constitution permitted a ban on the in-city sale of foie gras, or whether the ordinance improperly targeted extraterritorial conduct.
2. Whether federal food safety and inspection law preempted the ordinance.
3. Whether the ordinance violated the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate commerce.
4. Whether the ordinance violated the dormant Foreign Commerce Clause by impermissibly burdening foreign commerce or impairing national uniformity in foreign trade.

## Decision

- The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims.
- The ordinance was within Chicago’s home rule powers because it regulated sales within the City and addressed a local welfare concern.
- The ordinance was not preempted because it did not regulate food safety or inspection and did not conflict with federal law.
- The ordinance did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because it applied evenhandedly to foie gras regardless of origin and did not constitute protectionist discrimination or extraterritorial regulation.
- The ordinance did not violate the dormant Foreign Commerce Clause because it treated domestic and foreign foie gras the same and did not interfere with the federal government’s ability to speak with one voice in foreign commerce.

## Legal Principles

- An Illinois home rule municipality may regulate or prohibit the sale of a product within its borders to advance local welfare objectives, including ethical or animal-welfare concerns, absent a state-law limitation.
- A local sales prohibition does not become an impermissible extraterritorial regulation merely because it has economic effects on out-of-jurisdiction producers.
- Federal food safety and inspection regulation does not preempt a local ordinance when the ordinance addresses a different aim (such as animal welfare) and does not conflict with federal requirements.
- Under the dormant Commerce Clause, a non-discriminatory local law that regulates in-jurisdiction conduct and applies equally to in-state and out-of-state goods generally survives where any burden on commerce is incidental and not clearly excessive relative to local interests.
- A local law affecting imported goods does not violate the dormant Foreign Commerce Clause when it treats foreign and domestic commerce equally and does not impair national uniformity in foreign trade.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Chicago’s ban on the sale of foie gras, holding that regulating in-city sales for animal-welfare and moral reasons fell within home rule authority, was not federally preempted, and imposed no unconstitutional discrimination, extraterritorial regulation, or impermissible burden on interstate or foreign commerce.


Ill. Rest. Ass’n v. City of Chi., 492 F. Supp. 2d 891 (N.D. Ill. 2007)