Michigan Cage-Free Egg Lawsuit: Preemption Claim and Precedent

The Michigan cage-free egg lawsuit is a federal preemption case the U.S. Department of Justice filed against the State of Michigan in January 2026, seeking to strike down the state’s requirement that shell eggs sold in Michigan come from cage-free hens. As of late June 2026, the case is pending before U.S. District Judge Jane M. Beckering, who is weighing motions to dismiss an amended DOJ complaint after a nearly identical suit against California was thrown out on standing grounds in March.

Who Sued and What They Want

The DOJ filed United States of America v. State of Michigan et al., No. 1:26-cv-00246, on January 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. The defendants are the State of Michigan, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Director Dr. Timothy Boring, and Attorney General Dana Nessel.¹

The government is not challenging Michigan’s entire cage-free scheme. Its target is the sales ban at MCL 287.746(4), which forbids selling eggs in Michigan unless the hens that laid them were housed in compliance with the state’s cage-free standards. The DOJ argues that this provision restricts the supply of eggs available to Michigan consumers, raises prices, and unlawfully regulates eggs moving in interstate commerce.¹

Attorney General Pam Bondi framed the litigation as an effort to “ensure that American families are free from oppressive regulatory burdens,” blaming state animal-welfare laws for contributing to egg price inflation.²

The Legal Theory: Federal Preemption

The suit rests on express preemption under the Supremacy Clause. The DOJ points to the federal Egg Products Inspection Act, which provides that for eggs moving in interstate commerce, “no State or local jurisdiction may require the use of standards of quality, condition, weight, quantity, or grade which are in addition to or different from the official Federal standards.” Requiring eggs to come from cage-free housing, the government argues, imposes a standard federal law does not, and is therefore “in addition to or different from” what Congress authorized.¹

This is a different theory than the one the pork industry used against California’s Proposition 12. That earlier challenge relied on the dormant Commerce Clause, arguing a state law was reaching across state lines to control production elsewhere. The Michigan complaint raises no dormant Commerce Clause claim. It rests entirely on the position that Congress, through the EPIA, occupied the field of egg standards and left states no room to add their own.¹

Where the Case Stands

After Judge Mark Scarsi dismissed the parallel California case in March 2026, the DOJ filed a First Amended Complaint in the Michigan case on April 27, 2026. Judge Beckering then denied the original motions to dismiss as moot and allowed the parties to refile against the amended complaint.³

Several outside groups have joined the case on the defense side. In April 2026, Judge Beckering permitted Michigan Allied Poultry Industries, Animal Wellness Action, the Center for a Humane Economy, Animal Equality, and others to intervene.³ The Animal Legal Defense Fund and Animal Outlook were also granted intervention.⁴ Michigan’s own egg industry, in other words, is defending the law the federal government is trying to strike down.

Michigan, the animal-welfare intervenors, and Michigan Allied Poultry Industries have all moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The DOJ filed its opposition on June 8, 2026, and reply briefs followed on June 22, 2026. A ruling from Judge Beckering is now pending.³

What Michigan’s Law Actually Requires

Michigan’s cage-free requirements were updated by Senate Bill 174 in 2019 and codified in the Animal Industry Act at MCL 287.746. Egg-laying hens must be kept in cage-free housing with access to enrichments such as scratch areas, perches, nest boxes, and dust-bathing areas. Battery cages, colony cages, and enriched cages are prohibited. The rules apply to farms with 3,000 or more hens and cover all shell eggs sold in Michigan, whether produced in-state or out-of-state. Liquid eggs, cooked eggs, and eggs in transit for further processing are exempt.⁵

The compliance deadline arrived at the end of 2024. Retailers must obtain written confirmation from suppliers that eggs meet the standard, and the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development enforces the law through inspections, using education for first violations and fines for repeat noncompliance.⁶ By the time the DOJ filed suit, roughly 75% of Michigan egg farms had already completed the transition, with most large operations having been converting for up to a decade.⁷

The Price Dispute

The DOJ complaint asserts that Michigan’s cage-free mandate has “diminished the purchasing power and prosperity of the American worker” by raising egg prices.⁸⁹¹⁰ Walmart has estimated cage-free eggs cost 25–40% more to produce than conventional eggs.¹¹

The spikes that drew public attention in 2024 and 2025, however, were tied to avian influenza. In the three months before January 2025, more than 30 million chickens, roughly 10% of the national laying flock, were killed to contain H5N1, which had infected or killed 136 million birds since reaching the United States in 2022.¹² A University of Arkansas study found that flock losses alone accounted for 12–24% increases in retail egg prices.¹³

Michigan Allied Poultry Industries stated that the state’s law was not expected to increase egg costs or diminish supply, attributing price increases instead to avian influenza.¹⁴ Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action, said the DOJ suit “disregards settled law, ignores industry realities, and does nothing to address the real challenges facing egg producers and consumers alike.”⁷

What the California Case Says About Michigan’s Odds

The DOJ filed a nearly identical preemption suit against California’s Proposition 12 in July 2025.² On March 19, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi dismissed that case on standing grounds, finding the federal government had not shown any concrete injury. Scarsi called the government’s arguments “undisguised legal conclusions in search of substantiating facts” and warned that letting the suit proceed on the Supremacy Clause alone risked the abuse of federal resources “to bring state laws in line with its own political agenda.”¹⁵

The dismissal was without prejudice. In April 2026, the DOJ filed an amended California complaint refocused on the state’s enforcement mechanism, arguing that California’s requirement that egg distributors register with compliance certificates “directly undermines the federal government’s codified interest in nationally uniform egg standards.”¹⁶

The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross upheld Proposition 12 against a dormant Commerce Clause challenge, with Justice Gorsuch writing for the plurality that relief from state laws disrupting national markets lies with Congress rather than the courts.¹⁷ Because the DOJ’s preemption theory is legally distinct, that ruling does not directly dispose of the Michigan case. The California standing dismissal, though, suggests the federal government may struggle to show it is concretely harmed by state animal-welfare rules, and Michigan’s defendants and intervenors have leaned on the same argument.

The Bill in Congress That Could Moot the Case

A legislative track is running alongside the litigation. The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567), introduced on February 13, 2026, includes Section 12006, sometimes called the “Save Our Bacon Act,” which would preempt state and local laws conditioning the sale of livestock-derived products on production standards imposed outside the state where the animals were raised.¹⁸

The House passed the bill on April 30, 2026, by 224–200, after the Rules Committee rejected bipartisan amendments that would have stripped Section 12006.¹⁹ The provision was under Senate negotiation as of June 2026. A Harvard Law School Animal Law and Policy Clinic analysis concluded that Section 12006 could reach more than 600 state agricultural regulations beyond the cage-free and crate-free laws it was written to target.²⁰ If Section 12006 becomes law, it could end the Michigan and California lawsuits by accomplishing through legislation what the DOJ has not accomplished in court.

1
Gongwer. Complaint, United States v. State of Michigan, No. 1:26-cv-00246
2
Civil Eats. Trump Administration Sues California Over Cage-Free Egg Laws
3
PACER Monitor. United States of America v. Michigan, State of et al
4
Law360. Animal Rights Groups Jump Into Cage-Free Egg Fight
5
Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Cage-Free Egg Law
6
Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Cage-Free Egg Law Summary
7
Civil Eats. Trump DOJ Sues Michigan to Overturn Cage-Free Egg Law
8
CBS News Detroit. Trump Administration Sues Michigan Over Cage-Free Egg Production Law
9
FMI. Challenges Associated With the Transition to Cage-Free Eggs Study
10
UC Davis. Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on Egg-Laying Hen Housing
11
Forbes. 2025 Is a Critical Year for Cage-Free Meat and Eggs
12
The New York Times. Egg Shortage Prices
13
The Guardian. Egg Prices, Bird Flu, Corporate Profits
14
The Detroit News. Why Michigan’s Cage-Free Egg Law Not Expected to Hike Prices, but Bird Flu May
15
Politico. Judge Hands California a Victory Over Trump in Egg Price Lawsuit
16
Capital Press. Trump Administration Revises Lawsuit Against California Chicken Rules After Dismissal
17
U.S. Supreme Court. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21-468
18
U.S. House Rules Committee. H.R. 7567 – Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026
19
Animal Legal Defense Fund. Oppose the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026
20
Stateline. Animal Welfare Rules Might Be Rolled Back by Congress