Author: Elizabeth Rumley

In the first quarter of 2025, state legislatures across the United States have proposed bills regulating cell-cultured meat, including both labeling requirements and sales restrictions. Cell-cultured meat, also known as “lab-grown meat” or even “fake meat”, is produced by cultivating animal cells in a controlled environment, offering a potential alternative to traditional livestock farming.​

Federal Oversight and Labeling

At the federal level, the regulation of cell-cultured meat involves both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA oversees the pre-harvest production phase, while the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) manages post-harvest processing, packaging, and labeling. In 2023, FSIS authorized the sale of cell-cultured chicken produced by two California startups, marking the first-ever approval by the federal agency. The products were sold in a limited capacity though a few restaurants shortly after that approval, but are not commercially available at this time. 

Recent State-Level Legislative Actions

• Mississippi: In March, Mississippi became the third state to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution of lab-grown meat. Violations of this law are classified as misdemeanors, carrying penalties of fines up to $500 and/or imprisonment for up to three months. Further, retail food establishments may lose their licenses if they sell or distribute the products.  The Mississippi law will go into effect on July 1, 2025.  This legislation aligns with similar bans enacted by Florida and Alabama in 2024.  More information about the Florida and Alabama laws is available here.   
• South Dakota: HB 1022 allows for the sale of cell cultured meat products, but requires additional language (either “cell-cultured” or “lab grown”) on the label.  It was signed into law in February.  HB 1118, also enacted in 2025, prohibits the use of any state funds in connection with the research, production, promotion, sale, or distribution of cell-cultured meat within the state, but does not apply to any institution under the control of the South Dakota Board of Regents.
• Utah: HB 138 is also a labeling law, requiring additional verbiage for “cultivated meat product[s]” or “plant or insect based meat substitute[s]” that are “reasonably certain to notify a consumer” that the food contains those ingredients.  It was signed into law in March.
• Georgia: House Bill 201, like MS, FL, and AL, would prohibit the sale of cell cultured meat within the state.  It is currently in committee.  House Bill 163 would allow for the sale of both “cell cultured meat” and “plant based meat alternative” products, but would impose requirements on food service establishments that required additional disclosures that those products are not “conventional meat products.”  It has made it through the House and is pending in the Senate.   
• South Carolina: Senate Bill 103 would prohibit labeling of cell cultured products as “beef, poultry, fish, crustacean, or any other animal protein that the cell-cultivated food product may resemble.  Additionally, the label must state that “[t]his product contains protein that was developed in a lab and grown from a biopsy of animal cells. The protein in this product is not naturally grown beef, poultry, fish, crustacean, or any other animal protein.”  The bill is currently with the Agricultural Committee. 
• Oklahoma: HB 2829 has passed the House and is currently pending in the Senate.  It would make it unlawful to “manufacture, sell, hold or offer for sale, or distribute any cultivated meat product”.  However, it would allow research on the development of those products to be conducted in the state.  There are also two additional bills that originated in and are pending in the Oklahoma Senate, both of which would impact the labeling of cell cultured products.  SB 96 would apply the labeling restrictions to both cell-cultured and “insect-protein food products”. While SB 22 focuses only on cell-cultured products, in addition to the labeling restrictions it would prohibit the manufacture of those products within the state.  
• Other states, including Colorado, Illinois, Indiana and Wyoming, have also proposed bills on this topic this year.

​While the products are not currently available to the United States consumer, legislative attention is certainly focused on how- and whether- they should be in the future.  As the market continues to evolve, an ongoing dialogue among federal and state lawmakers, industry stakeholders, and consumer advocacy groups will be crucial to establishing a framework that balances all interests.  

---

Rumley, Elizabeth. “A Steak by Any Other Name: How States Are Shaping the Future of Cultivated Meat.” Southern Ag Today 5(15.5). April 11, 2025. Permalink

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a federal law aimed at combating financial crimes like money laundering and tax evasion. Under the CTA, most corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), and similar entities were required to disclose their “beneficial owners”—individuals who own or control at least 25% of the business or exercise significant decision-making authority.  

Numerous court actions were filed challenging the requirement.  The rulings since that time have gone back and forth, with a series of injunctions from some courts prohibiting the enforcement of the law while other courts allowing it.  After the most recent injunction was lifted, the Department of Treasury announced a mid-March, 2025 deadline for compliance.  

However, on March 2, 2025, the Department of Treasury announced that it would no longer be enforcing any penalties or fines associated with the beneficial ownership reporting requirements.  Further, the Department will “be issuing a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only.”  As of today, March 4, 2025, entities are not required to disclose their beneficial owners or comply with the existing CTA regulations.    

Background on CTA & Reporting Requirements  

On January 1, 2024, the CTA’s rules went into effect. Entities created before that date were given until January 1, 2025 to comply, while companies formed during 2024 were given 90 days to report the beneficial ownership information.

CTA regulations for reporting entities required they:

1. Identify Beneficial Owners: Determine who qualifies as a beneficial owner within your company. Consider factors like ownership percentage and decision-making power.
2. Collect Required Information: Gather key details about each beneficial owner, including their full legal name, date of birth, residential address, and an identification number (e.g., from a passport or driver’s license), as well as a scan or picture of that identifying document.
3. Submit Information to FinCEN: File the information securely with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) through its online reporting system. Detailed instructions are available on the FinCEN website.

Noncompliance had significant consequences, including fines of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years. CTA requirements were separate from and in addition to any corporate paperwork that is filed with a state agency. It is an additional, and new, federal requirement.  Entities also had an ongoing requirement to update the report if information changes. 

Highlights of previous legal challenges:

As noted, several court actions were filed in 2024 challenging the new requirement.  For example, a federal district court in Alabama ruled early in 2024 that the CTA was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in that case were granted summary judgement, and CTA enforcement was suspended only for the named plaintiffs and members of the National Small Business Association.  

However, rulings with larger effect came about at the end of 2024.  One of those began on December 3^rd, 2024 when Judge Amos Mazzant, a federal judge in Texas, issued a nationwide injunction. This injunction paused the reporting deadlines and prevents enforcement of the regulations. The ruling in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland was in response to a request for a preliminary injunction, where the court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. It was not a final determination of the case itself. The case was appealed, and the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals was asked two things: to decide based on the merits of the case, and to decide whether the injunction was issued appropriately.  And this is where the road zigzagged!  

On December 23^rd, the 3-judge panel (the “motion” panel) responsible for considering the injunction decided that it was not issued appropriately and suspended enforcement of the injunction, reinstating the reporting requirements.  Then, on December 27^th, a 3-judge panel responsible for deciding the merits of the case (the “merits” panel) overturned the motion panel and reinstated the injunction.  The foundation of the ruling, according to the court, was “to preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the parties weighty substantive arguments”.  Arguments for the appeal have been scheduled for April 1st in New Orleans. 

The government chose to appeal the ruling of the merits panel to the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), arguing that the injunction should be lifted.  On January 23, 2025, SCOTUS issued a ruling on the government’s “application for stay,” agreeing that the injunction should be lifted (and reporting requirements reinstated) until the litigation ends.  

In the meantime, another district court judge had considered the issue.  In that case, plaintiffs Samantha Smith and Robert Means challenged the constitutionality of CTA.  On January 7^th, Federal District Court Judge Jeremy Kernodle agreed with their contentions for the purposes of a preliminary ruling, which acted as a second nationwide stay. 

This was only a temporary hold however, because in light of the SCOTUS ruling Judge Kernodle lifted the stay on February 17^th.  While this effectively re-imposed CTA requirements, the Department of Treasury soon announced that it would no longer enforce the regulations.  

What’s next?

The Department of Treasury has announced that it will be issuing an interim final rule to narrow the scope of the rule.  It expects to have that rule completed and issued by March 21^st, 2025. 

Further, there is also movement in Congress that may affect the future of the CTA.  On February 10, the House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 736, which would modify the CTA by extending the filing deadline until January 1, 2026.  That proposal has now moved to the Senate for consideration.  A companion bill, S. 505, is also being considered in the Senate.  Both the House and Senate versions would postpone the deadline, but leave the reporting requirements intact. 

 Other legislation, introduced together as H.R. 125 and S. 100, the “Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act,” would repeal the CTA entirely.  They are under committee consideration in their respective chambers. 

Changes could be made based on further developments in this court case (or others), changes in the regulations or guidance or even further Congressional action.  Because of that, it is important to stay aware of future developments.  

If you have additional questions, please reach out to a legal or financial professional.

Information on finding an attorney in your area is available here. Further, the FinCEN website

provides additional resources and information to clarify requirements and future changes.

---

Rumley, Elizabeth. “Corporate Transparency Act Deadline Upcoming.” Southern Ag Today 4(48.5). November 29, 2024. Permalink

The Farm Bill proposal by Rep. Glenn “G,T.” Thompson has made it through the initial markup and passed through the House Agricultural Committee. While there is still a long road between now and what is ultimately enacted, there are a few provisions in the proposed bill of particular interest to folks in animal agriculture. 

One proposed provision would prohibit states from setting conditions for sale on products derived from “covered livestock” that are different than those imposed by the state where the animal was raised.  As a reminder, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that states do have the ability to set sales restrictions, allowing California to enforce Proposition 12.  If this proposal is enacted, it would prohibit California (and Massachusetts) from enforcing their current sales restrictions.  Additionally, it would prevent other states (such as New York, which is considering a similar bill), from enforcing any in the future.  Note, however, that the definition of “covered livestock” in the farm bill proposal specifically excludes laying hens.  In other words, the provisions of Prop 12 covering pork and veal products would not be enforceable, but the provisions requiring cage free egg production would be.  Similarly, other states that have passed or are considering laws requiring specified types of production methods for egg laying hens could still enforce those requirements.

Another proposed provision would create a pilot program allowing some custom exempt facilities to sell meat products directly to consumers.  “Custom exempt” does not require continuous inspection by a FSIS or state inspector during the slaughter process.  Currently, “custom exempt” meat cannot be sold, and is instead only available for consumption by the owner of the living animal.  More information on that here.  The proposal would allow participating custom exempt plants or customers who have animals processed at a custom exempt plant to sell the meat to the public, conditioned on the meat not being re-sold past the original buyer.  This pilot program would operate until 2029.

The Farm Bill is still a moving target, and provisions may look very different when/if they are ultimately passed. However, both of these provisions would both have a significant impact for livestock producers and should be watched carefully during the process.  

---

Rumley , Elizabeth. “Animal Ag in the “Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024”. Southern Ag Today 4(25.5). June 21, 2024. Permalink

As a lawyer at the National Agricultural Law Center, I don’t represent clients.  While I- and my colleagues- give presentations about legal issues across the country, we’re prohibited from giving legal advice specific to one person’s situation.  But there are many cases where that’s exactly what people ask for- an attorney who can represent their legal interests for the issues they’re facing.  When I get that question, here are some suggestions I give:

• The legal issue you’re facing is going to influence the lawyer you’re looking for.  For many things, such as real estate, contract work, zoning changes, or basic business planning, a local attorney who may not always work with farmers may still be the best person for the job.  They’ll be convenient and knowledgeable about the administrative and court systems in your area.  However, for some issues, like crop insurance claim denials, NRCS determinations or ag bankruptcy, it might be better to work with an attorney who is more familiar with the tiny details and pitfalls that make up that area of practice. 
• In order to practice law, attorneys have to be a member of either their state bar or bar association.  Many of these have a function on their website allowing people to search for members.  Some search only by geography, so you can find lawyers close to you.  Others also allow searching by practice areas, which will help narrow your search to firms that work with real estate or contracts law, for example.  Further, some state bars have a referral service that can connect you with an attorney who practices in your area of need, while also requiring the attorney to charge a lower-cost initial consultation fee. The NALC has created a resource with links to these websites for each state. 
• You can also search for professional organizations in the relevant area of law.  Many state bar associations have “sections,” joined by attorneys with similar practice interests. The NALC resource can also help you identify active sections.  Additionally, there are nationwide organizations that have similar goals, some with a searchable membership directory.  For example, I’m a member of the American Agricultural Law Association, which focuses on areas of law that intersect with agriculture, and a membership list is available here.  
• If finances are a significant concern, there are a few options available.  It’s important to note, however, that these organizations are frequently overwhelmed with requests and sometimes limit their acceptance to certain legal issues, financial status or other criteria.  With that being said, many areas have Legal Aid offices that provide legal services to low-income families.  Search for your county or city name and “Legal Aid” to find one near you.  Additionally, some law schools have clinics where students work with licensed attorneys to help a limited number of individuals in certain situations, such as bankruptcy, immigration, or business formation and development.  Search for the name of the law school nearest you plus the word “clinics” to find out if that might be an option.  Finally, the American Bar Association has a service called Free Legal Answers where pro bono attorneys provide legal advice in certain subject areas.   

Finally, don’t discount the benefits of asking your friends and neighbors if they have an attorney they work with.  If that doesn’t work, every town in the country (at least that I’ve been to!) has a small restaurant where farmers meet in the mornings, visit and exchange local “news.” Stop by, have a cup of coffee and talk with them for a bit about who they recommend.  Be sure to try the pie!

The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has recently had a significant docket of cases with an impact on agriculture.  Two cases have been heard this fall, with another hearing set for next spring.

In Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court once again considered the scope of wetlands jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). Specifically, the Court was asked to revisit its landmark Rapanos ruling which resulted in two tests to establish when a wetland should receive CWA protection.  However, the Court rules are sure to impact the scope of CWA jurisdiction, and potentially impact EPA’s ongoing attempt to redefine the key CWA term “waters of the United States.” To learn more about the case, click here.

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, SCOTUS considered the constitutionality of “Prop 12,” a California law regulating space requirements for farm animals.  Specifically, the court heard arguments about the circumstances under which a state government can pass laws that primarily affect the actions of people in other states.  To learn more about this and other similar challenges to Prop 12, click here. 

The upcoming case involves water rights in the Colorado River basin, an area where drought conditions are already causing existing water allocations to be substantially reduced. In November, SCOTUS agreed to hear two cases involving the Navajo Nation’s potential rights to Colorado River water.  These cases have been consolidated so that there will be only one hearing, which is expected to be in early 2023. To read more, click here. 

In all three cases, a decision is expected by June 2023.

Author: Elizabeth Rumley

Senior Staff Attorney

erumley@uark.edu

---

Rumley, Beth. “The Supreme Court and Agriculture.” Southern Ag Today 2(53.5). December 30, 2022. Permalink