Council for Responsible Nutrition v. James

Background

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) challenged N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 391-oo, referred to in the opinion as the “Statute.” CRN sought a declaration that the Statute was facially invalid—that is, invalid in all its applications—and an injunction preventing the Attorney General from enforcing it. CRN also sought emergency temporary relief before the Statute’s effective date, but the court denied that request before deciding the motion to dismiss.

James moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that CRN had not stated a legally sufficient claim.

Standing and First Amendment Claim

The court denied the Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Relying on its earlier preliminary-relief decision, the court held that CRN had alleged enough facts to establish Article III standing and had shown subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.

The court also held that CRN plausibly alleged a First Amendment injury. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court was required to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in CRN’s favor. The court found that allegations about the Legislature’s decision to focus on how products were marketed, rather than only on their ingredients, plausibly supported an inference that the Statute could regulate protected speech. The court noted that it had serious doubts about CRN’s likelihood of ultimately succeeding, including whether the Statute would survive intermediate scrutiny, but those doubts did not require dismissal at the pleading stage.

Other Claims

The court held that CRN did not plausibly allege that the Statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face. It found that the Statute’s terms concerning products “labeled, marketed, or otherwise represented” for weight loss or muscle building were not necessarily indecipherable or vague in all applications. The court stated that CRN could bring an as-applied vagueness challenge but had not plausibly established a facial one.

The court also held that CRN failed to state a claim that the Statute was an excessive exercise of state police powers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Applying rational-basis review, the court found that CRN had not discredited every conceivable basis for the Statute. The Legislature’s stated concern that weight-loss or muscle-building products could contribute to unhealthy weight-control behaviors and eating disorders was sufficient to support the Statute as an exercise of the State’s police powers.

Finally, the court rejected CRN’s federal-preemption claim. CRN argued that the Statute was preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a), which addresses certain state requirements concerning food labeling and health claims. The court concluded that the Statute did not require changes to dietary-product labeling and therefore found no basis for preemption or a violation of the Supremacy Clause.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part James’s motion to dismiss. Only CRN’s First Amendment claim survived. The court directed the Clerk to close the specified motions and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gary Gorenstein for discovery on the remaining claim. The opinion does not state that any claim was dismissed with or without prejudice.