January 20, 2026 - AUSTIN, Texas - By J. Justin Wilson - Last Friday, at a hearing, a federal judge denied the State of Texas’s motion to dismiss the Institute for Justice’s lawsuit challenging Texas’s ban on the sale of cultivated meat. Ruling from the bench, U.S. District Judge Alan Albright held that the plaintiffs’ dormant Commerce Clause claim may proceed. While today’s decision is an important early win, the case now moves into discovery and further litigation before the ban can be permanently overturned. As part of his ruling, Judge Albright denied the companies’ request for a preliminary injunction, meaning the ban remains in effect for now.

“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,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Paul Sherman. “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.”

The case was brought by Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods, two California-based companies that produce cultivated meat—real meat grown from animal cells without raising or slaughtering animals. Wildtype produces cultivated salmon, and UPSIDE produces cultivated chicken. After completing federal safety reviews, the companies received a green light from the federal government to distribute their products in the United States.

Texas’s ban prohibits the sale of cultivated meat in the state and threatens steep penalties. The lawsuit argues the ban is not about health or safety; rather, it is unconstitutional economic protectionism designed to shut down innovative, out-of-state competitors.

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

“This is a safe, new way to produce real meat,” said Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO and Founder of UPSIDE. “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 dormant Commerce Clause claim is straightforward: States may not enact protectionist barriers that discriminate against interstate commerce. The evidence presented to the court shows Texas lawmakers and powerful industry interests were focused on keeping new competition out and propping up conventional meat producers—exactly the kind of economic favoritism the Constitution forbids.



Source:  Institute for Justice