United States Sixth Circuit

In a suit brought by two separate dairy-processor trade organizations, challenging a regulation adopted by the Ohio Department of Agriculture's (ODA), designed to regulate labeling of dairy products that reflect the nonuse of artificial hormones, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the state of Ohio on all but one of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the regulation's prophylactic ban of composition claims such as "rbST free" is more extensive than necessary to serve the state's interest in preventing consumer deception; 2) although the regulation's disclosure requirement is reasonably related to the state's interest in preventing consumer deception, there is no rational basis between this concern and the "contiguous" requirement of such a disclosure; and 3) the regulation is constitutional under Pike, as it does not have an impermissible extraterritorial effect, it is not protectionist, and there is a rational basis to believe that the regulation's benefit outweighs any burden that it imposes.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/10/2010
• Decided 09/30/2010
• Published 09/30/2010

Judges

• GILMAN

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Charles M. English, Jr., David M. Lieberman