Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods notch early court victory as Texas cultivated meat ban faces scrutiny

At a hearing in Austin, Texas, a federal judge has handed cultivated meat producers Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods an early procedural win in their legal challenge to Texas’s ban on the sale of cultivated meat, clearing the way for the case to move into discovery while leaving the ban in force for now.

• A federal judge denied Texas’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on cultivated meat, allowing a dormant Commerce Clause claim to proceed.

• The court declined to grant a preliminary injunction, meaning the Texas ban on cultivated meat sales remained in effect.

• The case, brought by Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods, now moved into discovery and further litigation.

US District Judge Alan Albright ruled from the bench that the plaintiffs’ dormant Commerce Clause claim could proceed, rejecting Texas’s attempt to end the lawsuit at an early stage. At the same time, Albright denied the companies’ request for a preliminary injunction, meaning Texas’s prohibition on the sale of cultivated meat continued to apply while the case advanced.

The lawsuit was filed by Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods, two California-based companies producing meat grown from animal cells without raising or slaughtering animals. Wildtype focused on cultivated salmon, while UPSIDE Foods produced cultivated chicken. Both companies had completed federal safety reviews and received approval from the US government to distribute their products nationally before Texas enacted its ban.

The legal challenge was brought with the support of the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm representing the companies at no charge. The plaintiffs argued that Texas’s ban violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the US Constitution by discriminating against interstate commerce and protecting in-state economic interests from outside competition.

“Texas is trying to use government power to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, favoring in-state agriculture to the detriment of innovative, out-of-state competitors,” commented Paul Sherman, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice. “The Constitution doesn’t allow states to wall off their markets just to protect politically powerful industries from out-of-state competition. Texans, not politicians, should decide what’s for dinner.”

Texas’s law prohibited the sale of cultivated meat products within the state and threatened companies and sellers with significant penalties for violations. According to the lawsuit, the ban was not rooted in food safety concerns, which were already addressed through federal regulatory review, but instead represented unconstitutional economic protectionism.

During the hearing, Judge Albright agreed that the companies had presented a plausible claim under the dormant Commerce Clause, which limited the ability of states to enact laws that discriminated against or unduly burdened interstate commerce. His decision allowed the lawsuit to proceed into discovery, where the parties could seek documents, testimony, and other evidence related to the intent and impact of the ban.

The court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction, however, meant that Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods could not yet sell their cultivated meat products in Texas. A final determination on the legality of the ban would come later in the litigation process.

Justin Kolbeck, Co-founder & CEO of Wildtype, welcomed the court’s decision to let the case move forward. “We’re grateful the court is allowing this case to move forward,” Kolbeck said. “Texans should be free to choose what they eat, and to decide for themselves whether they want cultivated meat on the menu.”

UPSIDE Foods also framed the case as a matter of consumer choice rather than technological novelty. “This is a safe, new way to produce real meat,” said Dr Uma Valeti, CEO and founder of UPSIDE Foods. “The government shouldn’t ban it just to shield entrenched interests from competition. We’re eager to bring our product to Texas and let people judge it with their own taste buds.”

The lawsuit’s core argument centered on the dormant Commerce Clause, a long-established constitutional doctrine that restricted states from passing protectionist laws favoring local businesses over out-of-state competitors. The plaintiffs pointed to legislative statements and industry lobbying efforts as evidence that the Texas ban was designed to keep new market entrants out while bolstering conventional meat producers within the state.

Judge Albright’s ruling did not address the ultimate merits of those claims, but it signaled that the court believed the arguments deserved fuller examination. As the case moved into discovery, both sides prepared for a deeper legal battle over the motivations behind the ban and its compatibility with constitutional limits on state power.

For now, the Texas ban on cultivated meat remained in effect, and the outcome of the case remained uncertain. What the ruling did establish was that the legal fight over cultivated meat regulation in the USA was far from settled, with constitutional questions now firmly in play as Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods pressed their challenge forward.

(Main photo shows Justin Kolbeck [left] and Aryé Elfenbein from Wildtype)