Upside Foods loses bid to block Florida’s cultivated meat ban in key US appeals ruling

Upside Foods has lost its attempt to block Florida’s ban on cultivated meat, after a US federal appeals court ruled that the state is allowed to prohibit the sale of lab-grown chicken despite federal approval of the product.

• A US appeals court ruled that federal law does not override Florida’s ban on cultivated meat, rejecting Upside Foods’ request for a preliminary injunction.
• The court found that banning a product is legally distinct from regulating how it is produced or what it contains.
• The decision follows earlier legal challenges in Florida and Texas, where cultivated meat bans have faced constitutional scrutiny but remained in force.

In a decision issued on March 23, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that denied Upside Foods’ motion for a preliminary injunction against Florida’s SB 1084, a law that bans the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cultivated meat in the state.

The case centered on whether federal law, specifically the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), overrides Florida’s prohibition. Upside Foods argued that because its cultivated chicken had received clearance from both the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture, the state could not block its sale.

The court disagreed.

“The bottom line is that we agree with the district court,” the opinion stated, concluding that federal law does not preempt Florida’s ban because the state is not regulating how cultivated meat is produced, but rather prohibiting the product itself.

Upside Foods, a California-based company, produces cultivated chicken by growing animal cells in a controlled environment. The company has completed a pre-market safety consultation with the FDA and received a 'no questions' letter, as well as a USDA grant of inspection and labeling approval.

However, Florida lawmakers passed SB 1084 to ban cultivated meat within the state, framing the move as a defense of traditional agriculture. The law makes it a criminal offense to manufacture, sell, or distribute cultivated meat in Florida.

The appeals court’s reasoning hinged on a key legal distinction. Federal law governs how poultry products are produced, processed, and labeled, but the court found that Florida’s law does not attempt to regulate those areas. Instead, it bans the product outright.

“SB 1084 does not tell Upside how to make its lab-grown chicken,” the court noted, adding that the law does not “reach into Upside’s premises, facilities, or onsite operations.”

Because of that distinction, the court ruled that federal law does not override the state’s authority in this case.

The decision marks a significant development in a broader series of legal battles over cultivated meat regulation in the United States.

In April 2025, a federal judge in Florida allowed Upside Foods’ lawsuit challenging the same ban to proceed, finding that the company had plausibly argued the law could violate the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause by protecting in-state industries from out-of-state competition. While that ruling kept the case alive, it did not block the ban from taking effect.

Similar tensions have played out in Texas. In September 2025, Upside Foods and Wildtype filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s cultivated meat ban, arguing it was not based on food safety concerns but instead represented economic protectionism. The companies contended that their federally approved products should be allowed to enter the Texas market.

In January 2026, a federal judge declined to dismiss that case, allowing the constitutional challenge to proceed into discovery. However, the court also denied a preliminary injunction, meaning Texas’s ban remained in place while litigation continued.

Statements made during those earlier proceedings underscored the industry’s position. “This is a safe, new way to produce real meat,” said UPSIDE Foods CEO Dr Uma Valeti at the time. “The government shouldn’t ban it just to shield entrenched interests from competition.” Wildtype Co-founder Justin Kolbeck similarly emphasized consumer choice, stating that “Texans should be free to choose what they eat.”

The March 2026 appeals ruling in Florida now adds a new dimension to those ongoing disputes. By rejecting the argument that federal law preempts state-level bans, the court has reinforced the ability of individual states to prohibit cultivated meat regardless of federal approval.

While the decision relates specifically to a preliminary injunction, its implications extend beyond the Florida case. It suggests that federal clearance does not guarantee nationwide market access, raising the prospect of a fragmented regulatory landscape in which cultivated meat is permitted in some states but banned in others.

For companies seeking to scale, that could introduce new complexity. Rather than relying solely on federal pathways, developers may need to engage with state-level policymakers and navigate a patchwork of regulations.

The case is not fully resolved. Upside Foods continues to pursue other claims, including arguments under the dormant Commerce Clause, which were not addressed in this appeal.

For now, however, Florida’s ban remains in force, and the ruling stands as one of the clearest signals yet that the legal framework governing cultivated meat in the USA is still taking shape.