## Facts

- Vermont enacted 6 V.S.A. § 2754(c), requiring retail milk and milk products to be labeled if rBST (a synthetic growth hormone) was used in production.
- The FDA approved rBST in 1993 and concluded milk from treated and untreated cows was indistinguishable in safety and composition; it did not require rBST labeling.
- Trade associations representing dairy manufacturers and distributors selling products in Vermont challenged the statute under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First Amendment (compelled speech), the Commerce Clause, and the Supremacy Clause.
- The manufacturers sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement, relying on the First Amendment and Commerce Clause.
- The district court denied the renewed preliminary-injunction motion.
- The manufacturers appealed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Vermont’s mandatory rBST labeling requirement likely violates the First Amendment by compelling commercial speech without a substantial governmental interest.
2. Whether the manufacturers established irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to warrant preliminary injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to grant preliminary injunctive relief.
- The court held the manufacturers showed irreparable harm because compelled speech implicates First Amendment rights.
- The court concluded the manufacturers were likely to succeed on the merits because Vermont failed to identify a substantial governmental interest supporting the compelled disclosure.
- The court did not resolve the Commerce Clause claim at the preliminary-injunction stage, deciding the appeal on First Amendment grounds.
- Judge Leval dissented, reasoning that the state had a legitimate interest in informing consumers about production methods and that the disclosure should be permissible under a more deferential standard for factual commercial disclosures.

## Legal Principles

- Compelled commercial disclosures must be supported by at least a substantial governmental interest; consumer interest alone is insufficient.
- A state cannot compel accurate, factual commercial speech solely to satisfy a generalized “right to know” where the product is not shown to be misbranded and the disclosure is not necessary to prevent consumer deception.
- Where the government does not show that a production method affects a product’s safety, use, or value, mandating a label about that method lacks the required justification for compelled commercial speech.
- For preliminary injunctions involving alleged First Amendment violations, loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal periods constitutes irreparable injury.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held Vermont likely violated the First Amendment by compelling rBST-related labeling without a substantial interest beyond consumer curiosity, and it ordered preliminary injunctive relief barring enforcement of the labeling requirement pending further proceedings.


Int’l Dairy Foods Ass’n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1996)