Michigan Cage-Free Egg Lawsuit: DOJ Claims and State Defense

The Michigan cage-free egg lawsuit is a federal case the U.S. Department of Justice filed against the State of Michigan in January 2026, arguing that the federal Egg Products Inspection Act preempts Michigan’s ban on selling shell eggs from caged hens. The case, United States v. State of Michigan (No. 1:26-cv-00246), is before Judge Jane M. Beckering in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, and as of mid-2026 it is awaiting a ruling on Michigan’s motion to dismiss.¹

What the DOJ Is Challenging

The complaint, filed January 22, 2026, names the State of Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel, and MDARD Director Timothy Boring in their official capacities. It targets one specific provision: the sales ban at Michigan Compiled Laws § 287.746(4), which prohibits the sale of shell eggs from hens kept in non-compliant housing. The DOJ is not challenging Michigan’s power to regulate how hens are housed on farms inside the state.²

The legal theory is federal preemption. The DOJ argues that the Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970 sets uniform national standards for the quality and condition of eggs in interstate commerce and preempts state requirements that are “in addition to or different from” those standards. According to the complaint, Michigan’s law “impermissibly imposes standards of quality and condition on eggs themselves” and amounts to “state-specific egg quality standards” that drive up consumer prices.¹³ The government also invokes the Supremacy Clause. It wants a declaratory judgment that the sales ban is invalid and a permanent injunction stopping the state from enforcing it.

The Michigan Law at Stake

Michigan’s cage-free requirement took effect December 31, 2024. Since then, all shell eggs sold in the state must come from hens housed in cage-free systems, meaning hens can roam indoors with enrichments for scratching, nesting, and perching. Battery cages, colony cages, and enriched cages are all prohibited.⁴

The rule applies to farms with 3,000 or more laying hens and reaches any qualifying supplier selling into Michigan, regardless of where the farm is located. Sellers must obtain written confirmation from suppliers that the eggs comply, and a seller who relies in good faith on that certification has an affirmative defense. Liquid eggs, cooked eggs, eggs in transit, and eggs headed for further processing are exempt. MDARD enforces the law through routine food establishment inspections, starting with education before escalating.⁵

Roughly 75% of Michigan’s egg farms had already converted to cage-free systems by the time the DOJ sued, and the state produces about 5 billion eggs a year as the seventh-largest egg producer in the country.⁶

How Michigan Is Fighting Back

Michigan moved to dismiss in April 2026 on two grounds. The first is standing. The state argues the federal government has not suffered the kind of concrete, redressable injury Article III requires, because the EPIA’s preemption provisions regulate private actors rather than state governments. Nothing about Michigan’s law directly harms the United States as a sovereign.⁷

The second argument is substantive. Michigan says the EPIA governs the condition and quality of eggs, while its own law governs how hens are housed. Because housing conditions cannot be detected by examining an egg, the state’s position is that the two regimes operate in separate spheres and the federal statute does not preempt the state one.⁷

Why the California Ruling Matters

Michigan’s standing argument leans heavily on what happened to a parallel DOJ suit against California. The Trump administration filed that case in July 2025, challenging the cage-free rules California voters enacted through Proposition 2 in 2008 and Proposition 12 in 2018.⁸ On March 19, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi dismissed it, holding that the DOJ had failed to “allege facts supporting a cognizable theory of standing.”⁹

Judge Scarsi rejected the idea that the existence of an allegedly preempted state law is itself a “sovereign injury” to the United States. He warned that accepting such a theory would let “the federal government initiate a campaign of preemption suits under the aegis of its sovereignty to bring state laws in line with its own political agenda,” calling the potential for abuse “manifest.”⁹ The ruling does not bind the Western District of Michigan, but Michigan cites it directly in its motion.

The Price Argument

The administration has framed both lawsuits as efforts to lower egg prices. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the suits are meant to keep families “free from oppressive regulatory burdens.”¹⁰ The USDA has noted that egg prices in California run about 60% higher than in other regions.¹¹

The nationwide price spike has other causes too. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Grade A eggs hit a record $6.23 per dozen in March 2025.¹⁰ Highly pathogenic avian influenza has forced the destruction of nearly 175 million birds since early 2022, and 45 million more were affected starting in November 2024, 70% of them table egg layers.¹² A multi-university study involving Michigan State, Purdue, and Kansas State found that cage-free conversion raises labor, housing, and capital costs, yet cage-free eggs sold under fixed or cost-plus contracts have at times run cheaper than conventional eggs on the volatile open market.¹³

Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action, called the DOJ suit a “baseless legal attack” that “disregards settled law, ignores industry realities, and does nothing to address the real challenges facing egg producers and consumers alike.”⁶

Other Ways the Law Could Change

The courtroom is not the only front. In January 2025, State Senator Lana Theis (R-Brighton) introduced Senate Bill 28 to repeal Michigan’s cage-free mandates, arguing they increase pathogen exposure and consumer costs.¹⁴ Other states have pulled back as well: Nevada suspended its cage-free rule for up to 120 days in early 2025, and Arizona delayed its mandate by seven years.¹³

In Congress, the House passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567) in late April 2026 by a vote of 224–200. A provision called the “Save Our Bacon Act” would bar states from setting production standards for farmed animal products in interstate commerce that differ from other states’. In the current House draft, that provision targets livestock confinement and specifically excludes egg-laying hens, so even if it becomes law it would not directly dislodge Michigan’s cage-free rule. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman has said he aims to keep the Proposition 12 nullification language out of the Senate version.¹⁵¹⁶

For now, Michigan’s cage-free sales ban remains in force, and the next development to watch is Judge Beckering’s ruling on the state’s motion to dismiss.

1
Gongwer News Service. United States v. State of Michigan, Complaint
2
Daily Intake Blog. DOJ Sues Michigan Over Cage-Free Egg Law
3
Feedstuffs. DOJ Files Suit Against Michigan Cage-Free Egg Law
4
Michigan Legislature. MCL 287.746
5
Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Cage-Free Egg Law Facts
6
Civil Eats. Trump DOJ Sues Michigan to Overturn Cage-Free Egg Law
7
Daily Intake Blog. Michigan Argues for Dismissal of DOJ Lawsuit Challenging Cage-Free Egg Law
8
Civil Eats. Trump Administration Sues California Over Cage-Free Egg Laws
9
Agri-Pulse. DOJ Lawsuit Challenging California Hen Welfare Laws Dismissed
10
Seattle Times. Trump Administration Sues California Over Egg Prices and Blames Animal Welfare Laws
11
U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA Invests $1 Billion to Combat Avian Flu and Reduce Egg Prices
12
Farm Credit East. Surging Egg Prices
13
Feedstuffs. Some States Back Off Cage-Free Mandates During Bird Flu Crisis
14
Michigan Senate Republicans. Theis Introduces Legislation to Repeal Cage-Free Egg Mandates
15
Stateline. Animal Welfare Rules Might Be Rolled Back by Congress
16
Humane Action. What’s Happening: California Prop 12, Farm Bill, and Save Our Bacon Act