Free Speech -- 2016



Grocery Manufacturers Ass'n v. Sorrell   (D. Vt.)

Vermont labeling law for genetically engineered products

The NAM filed a lawsuit challenging Vermont’s genetically modified organism labeling law as unconstitutional. Vermont required labels on products that contain genetically engineered plants and prohibited such products from being labeled as natural. This litigation is important because labeling food with these disclosures would stigmatize certain foods and require that manufacturers implement expensive separate labeling systems, stock-keeping units and Vermont-specific distribution chains. The NAM’s brief argued that 1) compelled speech violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom to speak and freedom to not speak; 2) any such requirement must accomplish a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means possible and 3) the Vermont government did not meet these requirements. The case became moot after President Obama signed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, which preempted the state law.


Related Documents:
Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Prelim. Injunction  (December 5, 2014)
NAM Opposition to Motion to Dismiss  (September 11, 2014)
Memo in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction  (September 11, 2014)
NAM Complaint  (June 12, 2014)

 

Grocery Manufacturers Ass'n v. Sorrell   (2nd Circuit)

First Amendment limits on government-mandated labelling disclosures and restrictions

The NAM filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of a district court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction in a constitutional challenge to Vermont’s genetically engineered food labeling law. Vermont required labels on products that contain genetically engineered plants and prohibited such products from being labeled as natural. This litigation affected companies that sell food products nationwide, since establishing distribution networks to supply products with unique labels in Vermont is very difficult and expensive. The NAM’s brief argued that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction because intermediate scrutiny should apply to this highly controversial issue, the law does not serve a substantial government interest and the law further does not directly advance Vermont’s asserted interests because it is exceedingly vague and replete with exemptions. The NAM filed a stipulation dismissing the appeal after President Obama signed the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, which preempted the state law.


Related Documents:
NAM Reply Brief  (September 8, 2015)