US court blocks Texas from enforcing plant-based labeling restrictions

A US federal court has permanently blocked Texas from enforcing a state law that restricts how plant-based foods may be labeled, ruling that the statute violates the First Amendment’s protections for commercial speech.

A federal judge has permanently enjoined Texas from enforcing its plant-based labeling law.

The court ruled that the law’s restrictions on plant-based food labels violate the First Amendment.

The case was brought by Turtle Island Foods and the Plant Based Foods Association.

The ruling was issued on 28 January 2026, by the US District Court for the Western District of Texas in Turtle Island Foods SPC and the Plant Based Foods Association versus Texas. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the challenged provision.

The case centered on Texas Senate Bill 664, which prohibited plant-based food products from using terms commonly associated with meat, such as 'burger', 'sausage', and 'roast', unless the product contained animal-derived meat. The law applied to food labels and marketing materials sold in the state.

Turtle Island Foods, which produces plant-based products under the Tofurky brand, and the Plant Based Foods Association argued that the law restricted truthful, non-misleading commercial speech and therefore violated the First Amendment.

In its order, the court held that the Texas statute failed to satisfy constitutional standards for restricting commercial speech. The judge found that Texas had not demonstrated that the labeling restrictions directly advanced a substantial government interest or that the law was narrowly tailored to prevent consumer deception.

The court noted that the challenged labels clearly disclosed that the products were plant-based and did not contain animal meat. As a result, the court concluded that Texas had not shown evidence of actual consumer confusion arising from the use of meat-related terms on plant-based products.

The court also rejected the state’s argument that the law was necessary to protect consumers from misleading labels, stating that Texas already possessed less restrictive tools to address deceptive practices under existing consumer protection laws.

As part of the ruling, the court permanently enjoined Texas officials from enforcing the plant-based labeling provision of SB 664 against the plaintiffs and their members. The injunction prevents the state from applying the restriction to plant-based food products marketed in Texas.

The order followed earlier litigation in which the court had issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law while the case proceeded. The January 28 ruling converted that temporary relief into a permanent injunction.

The decision applied specifically to the challenged labeling provision and did not strike down other portions of SB 664 that were not at issue in the case.

The ruling added to a growing body of federal court decisions addressing state efforts to restrict the labeling of plant-based and alternative protein products. Similar laws in other states have faced legal challenges on First Amendment grounds, with mixed outcomes depending on how narrowly the statutes were drafted.

Texas has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the ruling.