⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods challenge Texas's ban on selling cultivated meat. These foods are grown from animal cells in controlled facilities. Wildtype produces cultivated salmon; UPSIDE produces cultivated chicken. Before the ban took effect, Wildtype supplied an Austin sushi restaurant, and UPSIDE had made a sale to a Texas resident. The companies say they were also working to expand their Texas business. Senate Bill two sixty-one bars sales for human consumption, regardless of where the product was made. Its sales prohibition is scheduled to expire in September twenty twenty-seven unless changed. The companies sued Texas officials and sought a preliminary injunction: temporary relief that would allow sales while their lawsuit proceeded. The district court denied that request. It relied on the companies' limited existing Texas business and the ban's temporary duration, finding insufficient irreparable harm and concluding that the balance of harms did not favor an injunction. It did not decide whether the companies were likely to succeed on their Commerce Clause claim. The argument focuses on the dormant Commerce Clause, the constitutional restriction on state discrimination against interstate commerce. The companies will contend that Texas protected traditional agriculture from out-of-state competitors. Texas will answer that it regulates a particular product equally, including Texas companies, and is pausing sales because of potential health risks. Listen for two distinct questions: whether this is discrimination against interstate commerce or regulation of a product, and whether the companies have shown harm that justifies an immediate injunction.

Wild Type v. Garcia (No. 26-50181) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.