Minnesota Federal Court Rejects Cookware Group’s Arguments that Minnesota’s PFAS Ban Is Unconstitutional

On February 25, 2025, Judge Tunheim of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota issued an order denying the Cookware Sustainability Alliance’s (the Alliance) motion for a preliminary injunction. Cookware Sustainability Alliance v. Kessler, CASE 0:25-cv-00041-JRT-DTS (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2025). The injunction would have stopped enforcement of Minnesota’s currently effective ban on the use of PFAS in a variety of products sold in Minnesota, which was enacted as part of “Amara’s Law.” The Alliance argued that the ban on producing cookware with intentionally added PFAS violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and asked Judge Tunheim to enjoin enforcement of the law while litigation over its constitutionality proceeded.

Amara’s Law, Minn. Stat. § 116.943, was passed in 2023. It includes several PFAS pollution prevention measures, including an initial ban on intentionally added PFAS in certain consumer products. Under this initial PFAS ban, “a person may not sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale” in Minnesota the following products if the product contains intentionally added PFAS:

(1) carpets or rugs;

(2) cleaning products;

(3) cookware;

(4) cosmetics;

(5) dental floss;

(6) fabric treatments;

(7) juvenile products;

(8) menstruation products;

(9) textile furnishings;

(10) ski wax; or

(11) upholstered furniture.

The PFAS ban went into effect on January 1, 2025. The Alliance filed its case challenging the ban on January 6, 2025, and moved for a preliminary injunction the next day, on January 7, 2025.

The Alliance sought to enjoin enforcement of the PFAS ban, arguing that its members — cookware manufacturers outside of Minnesota — would be irreparably harmed if the ban were enforced because the law would lead to injury to its members’ reputations, consumer goodwill and brand loyalty. The Alliance further argued that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the PFAS Ban, and that the balance of the harms and public interest favored a preliminary injunction.

The court disagreed. The court ruled that the Alliance was unlikely to succeed on the merits of their dormant Commerce Clause claim. In doing so, the court rejected the Alliance’s arguments that the law is discriminatory in effect because it only applies to out-of-state manufacturers. It noted that, “[w]hen Amara’s Law was signed into law, at least one manufacturer in Minnesota, Nordic Ware, used PFAS in its cookware. Rather than fighting the Statute in court, Nordic Ware chose to comply and eventually ceased production of PFAS-laden cookware in 2024.”

The court also rejected arguments that the ban imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce because the burdens imposed outweigh the benefits. While the Alliance argued that Minnesota is single-handedly regulating the entire U.S. cookware industry by banning PFAS in cookware manufacturing, the court concluded that the state’s interest in well-documented environmental and health benefits clearly outweighed the burden on manufacturers.

As to irreparable harm, the court concluded that because no manufacturer will be allowed to sell cookware that contains PFAS in Minnesota, the burdens would be felt evenly across cookware manufacturers. The court recognized that there may be short-term harm to Alliance members, who “will certainly need to either change the composition of its products for Minnesota consumers or exit the market completely.” But, it added, that harm is not irreparable.

Finally, the court ruled that the balance of the harms and public interest did not favor a preliminary injunction on enforcement. It rejected the Alliance’s arguments that a preliminary injunction would preserve the status quo because the law had been adopted over eighteen months previously, but the Alliance waited until after the effective date to file suit. Accordingly, the court concluded that a preliminary injunction would upend the status quo, not preserve it.

So, the PFAS ban remains in effect in Minnesota. And, while a preliminary injunction is technically not a decision on the merits of the claim, this decision is a good indication that Judge Tunheim will ultimately uphold the PFAS ban.

This decision did not implicate the Alliance’s challenge to the future requirement to report PFAS, which the Alliance has alleged violates the First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. The Alliance’s case does not address the broader PFAS ban, which goes into effect in 2032. Minn. Stat. § 116.943, Subd. 5c (“Beginning January 1, 2032, a person may not sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale in this state any product that contains intentionally added PFAS, unless the commissioner has determined by rule that the use of PFAS in the product is a currently unavoidable use.”).