Judge denies injunction against Minnesota’s PFAS ban

Listen to this article

MINNEAPOLIS, MN — A federal judge has denied a cookware industry group’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have barred enforcement of Minnesota’s ban on intentionally added PFAS in consumer products sold or distributed in the state.

PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are chemicals that have been used in manufacturing since the 1940s. PFAS are found in many everyday products, including nonstick cookware and stain-resistant carpets. These substances can enter the environment during production and use, and do not break down naturally. While the full health effects of PFAS on humans and animals remain uncertain, the Centers for Disease Control has noted that some studies link exposure to harmful effects.

In a lawsuit, the Cookware Sustainability Alliance (CSA) argued that the state’s ban on PFAS violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, a legal doctrine prohibiting state regulations that favor local businesses over out-of-state competitors.

CSA also contended that the future requirement to report products containing PFAS to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency violates both the First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In 2023, Minnesota passed “Amara’s Law,” named for Amara Stranda, a 20-year-old who grew up in a St. Paul suburb and died of liver cancer, apparently caused by groundwater contaminated by PFAS. In doing so, Minnesota became one of the first states in the country to ban PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals.”

Starting this year, Minnesota banned many products that contain intentionally added PFAS. By 2032, the sale of any product with intentionally added PFAS will be prohibited unless it is considered essential for health, safety, or societal functioning and no viable alternatives exist.

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2026, the statute will also require manufacturers to report product details to the state whenever they sell, offer for sale, or distribute a new product containing intentionally added PFAS in Minnesota. The product information must include a brief description, the purpose of added PFAS, the amount of PFAS in the product, and the manufacturer’s name and address. Noncompliance can result in criminal prosecution and civil penalties.

Nonstick products represent the bulk of cookware in the United States’ market. Nonstick coatings can be created through various fluoropolymers, a group of polymers classified as PFAS.

CSA members include leading cookware manufacturers that are located outside of Minnesota. The alliance reported that Minnesota retailers started canceling orders with CSA members before the statute went into effect.

In January 2025, the CSA filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The CSA moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing that there is ongoing and irreparable harm caused by the statute’s imminent ban in Minnesota on the sale or distribution of cookware products containing intentionally added PFAS.

The CSA claimed that the ban violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because it only applies to out-of-state manufacturers. The court, however, did not agree with CSA that Amara’s Law discriminates against out-of-state interests. Nothing about the passage of the statute, the court noted, seemed to be motivated by discriminating against out-of-state entities.

“Indeed, the legislative history of Amara’s Law suggests exactly the opposite: that legislators chose to protect Minnesotans from the potential dangers of PFAS contamination despite its disproportionate effect on in-state industry,” Judge John Tunheim wrote.

After finding that the law was not facially discriminatory, the court maintained that it was not discriminatory in its effect either.

CSA argued that the law discriminated only against out-of-state manufacturers. Nordic Ware, located in Minnesota, stopped its production of cookware products that have PFAS in them in 2024.

“Amara’s Law applies to Nordic Ware as much today as it did the day before the company ceased producing such cookware, because Nordic Ware is prevented from renewing that particular line of cookware,” Tunheim wrote. “Choosing to comply with a law does not relieve one from the burden of the law.”

Nor did the court find that there was undue burden on interstate commerce. CSA maintained that Minnesota was regulating the entire cookware industry through passage of the law.

“CSA here has not adequately shown that the statute’s well-documented environmental and health benefits are clearly outweighed by the law’s burden on manufacturers,” Tunheim maintained. “And though there may be some burden on individual businesses, the overall effect on interstate commerce is not a substantial one, nor is it clearly excessive compared to the potential health and environmental benefits Amara’s Law professes to provide Minnesotans.”

The court also did not agree that there was threat of irreparable harm. CSA argued that the law’s enforcement would lead to injury of members’ reputations, consumer goodwill, and brand loyalty. It raised concerns about consumers switching to competitors’ brands or buying less-popular cookware that does not contain PFAS.

“No manufacturer will be allowed under the statute to sell nonstick cookware that contains PFAS. It then does not follow that a consumer wishing to buy nonstick cookware will switch to competitors, which themselves also cannot sell PFAS-laden nonstick cookware,” Tunheim wrote.

Tunheim also raised the fact that CSA waited more than a year and a half to file the suit, finding that “the statute is already in effect without cataclysmic disruption of the industry.”

The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the effect would be to upend the status quo rather than to maintain it.