Cookware Sustainability Alliance v. Kessler
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-00041
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Cookware Sustainability Alliance v. Kessler, Judge Tunheim dismissed with prejudice an industry group's constitutional challenge to Minnesota's ban on the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS chemicals, ruling that the law does not unlawfully discriminate against or impose an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Cookware manufacturers that sell fluoropolymer nonstick (PFAS-containing) cookware in Minnesota, including the three CSA member companies (Meyer Corporation U.S., Groupe SEB, and Tramontina), as well as Minnesota retailers and consumers who previously had access to PFAS-containing nonstick cookware. The ruling also has potential relevance to other industries challenging state-level product bans on dormant Commerce Clause grounds.
What happened
In Cookware Sustainability Alliance v. Kessler, a non-profit group representing three major cookware manufacturers — Meyer Corporation U.S., Groupe SEB, and Tramontina — sued Katrina Kessler, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to block enforcement of Minnesota's 'Amara's Law,' which bans the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, a category of synthetic chemicals often called 'forever chemicals'). The Cookware Sustainability Alliance (CSA) argued that the law violated the dormant Commerce Clause, which is the constitutional principle that states may not unjustifiably discriminate against or excessively burden the flow of goods across state lines. CSA also originally raised First Amendment and Supremacy Clause claims, but voluntarily dropped those during the lawsuit.
The court analyzed CSA's two remaining arguments. First, CSA claimed the law effectively discriminates against out-of-state manufacturers because the only Minnesota-based cookware maker, Nordic Ware, chose to stop making PFAS products and thus only out-of-state companies are burdened. The court rejected this, finding the law applies equally to all manufacturers regardless of where they are located, and that Nordic Ware's voluntary choice to comply does not mean the law targets out-of-state businesses. Second, CSA argued the law places an undue burden on interstate commerce by forcing manufacturers to either overhaul their product lines or exit the Minnesota market. The court rejected this too, relying heavily on a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving California's pig confinement law (National Pork Producers Council v. Ross), which held that forcing companies to change their practices or leave a state market is a burden on individual businesses — not on interstate commerce itself — and does not trigger constitutional protection.
Judge Tunheim granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. The dormant Commerce Clause claims (Counts 1 and 2) were dismissed with prejudice, meaning CSA cannot refile those claims. The First Amendment and Supremacy Clause claims (Counts 3 and 4), which CSA voluntarily withdrew, were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could theoretically be refiled. The court had previously denied CSA's request for a preliminary injunction (an emergency order to halt the law while the case proceeded), and this ruling ends the case on the merits of the constitutional challenge.
The detailed version
- Cookware Sustainability Alliance v. Kessler, Civil No. 25-41 (JRT/DTS)
- John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge
- August 11, 2025
Background and Parties
Plaintiff Cookware Sustainability Alliance (CSA) is a non-profit trade organization representing three cookware manufacturers: Meyer Corporation U.S., Groupe SEB, and Tramontina, all headquartered outside Minnesota. Together, CSA's members supply approximately 47% of fluoropolymer nonstick cookware sold nationwide and 57% sold in Minnesota. All three admittedly manufacture cookware containing PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances). Defendant Katrina Kessler is sued in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
In 2023, Minnesota enacted 'Amara's Law' (Minn. Stat. § 116.943), banning the sale or distribution of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS. Violations can result in criminal prosecution (up to a misdemeanor) and civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day per violation. The only Minnesota-based cookware manufacturer, Nordic Ware, complied with the law by discontinuing its PFAS-containing product line, leaving 100% of the fluoropolymer nonstick cookware market composed of out-of-state manufacturers.
Procedural Posture
CSA filed suit on January 6, 2025, alleging violations of the dormant Commerce Clause (Counts 1 and 2), the First Amendment (Count 3), and the Supremacy Clause (Count 4). The court previously denied CSA's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding CSA highly unlikely to succeed on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claims. See Cookware Sustainability All. v. Kessler, 2025 WL 607324 (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2025). The Commissioner then moved to dismiss the entire complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). CSA voluntarily agreed to dismiss Counts 3 and 4 without prejudice.
Legal Framework — Dormant Commerce Clause
The dormant Commerce Clause is the implied prohibition on state laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce, derived from Congress's affirmative power to regulate interstate commerce under Article I, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Under Eighth Circuit precedent (Styczinski v. Arnold, 46 F.4th 907 (8th Cir. 2022)), a state statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause if it: (1) clearly discriminates against interstate commerce in favor of in-state commerce; (2) imposes a burden on interstate commerce that outweighs its benefits (the 'Pike balancing test' from Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970)); or (3) has the practical effect of extraterritorial control. CSA pressed only theories (1) and (2).
Count 1 — Discrimination Against Interstate Commerce
CSA conceded the statute is facially neutral and was not passed with discriminatory intent. Its argument rested solely on the statute's alleged discriminatory effect: because Nordic Ware voluntarily stopped making PFAS products, the law now only burdens out-of-state manufacturers.
The court rejected this argument on multiple grounds. First, the law applies equally to Nordic Ware — it cannot resume its PFAS product line any more than an out-of-state manufacturer can sell into Minnesota. Voluntary compliance does not eliminate the legal burden. Second, the court distinguished between disparate impact on particular out-of-state businesses (permissible) and a structural effect on interstate commerce itself (impermissible), citing Truesdell v. Friedlander, 80 F.4th 762, 771 (6th Cir. 2023). Third, relying on Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Md., 437 U.S. 117 (1978), the court noted that a state may ban products manufactured 100% outside the state so long as the purpose is not to give a competitive advantage to in-state entities. The court used a thought experiment: if a CSA member moved its operations to Minnesota, it would face the exact same burden — demonstrating that the law provides no structural competitive advantage to in-state firms. Count 1 was dismissed.
Count 2 — Undue Burden on Interstate Commerce (Pike Balancing)
CSA argued the statute substantially burdens interstate commerce by forcing manufacturers to either (a) exit the Minnesota market, (b) reformulate all products to non-PFAS alternatives for all consumers, or (c) create separate PFAS-free production lines for Minnesota. CSA also alleged that PFAS in cookware poses no appreciable risk to Minnesotans' health or the environment. The court accepted this factual allegation as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
Nevertheless, the court dismissed Count 2 for several independent reasons, drawing heavily on National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023):
1. Failure to allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce itself: The court held that the Pike balancing test need not be reached if the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce — as opposed to a burden on individual market participants. Pork Producers establishes that requiring firms to change their practices or exit a state market is a burden on those firms, not on interstate commerce itself. CSA's complaint focused entirely on burdens to non-compliant manufacturers, not on the structure of interstate commerce.
2. Legislative deference on benefits side of the balance: Even if the balancing test were reached, courts must credit the legislature's stated public interest justifications. The court cited Pork Producers for the proposition that judges may not strike down duly enacted state laws based solely on their own cost-benefit assessment.
3. Consumer burdens are not cognizable harms under Pike: Pork Producers clarified that costs ultimately borne by in-state consumers under a law they democratically adopted do not count against the state in Pike balancing. Minnesota consumers losing access to PFAS-containing nonstick cookware reflects a policy choice made by their elected representatives.
4. Non-discrimination weakens the undue burden claim: Pork Producers clarified that the discrimination and undue-burden tests exist on a spectrum. Because CSA could not establish discrimination, its undue burden showing must be correspondingly stronger — a burden CSA failed to meet.
Disposition
- Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 27]: GRANTED. - Counts 1 and 2 (dormant Commerce Clause claims): DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (no refiling permitted). - Counts 3 and 4 (First Amendment and Supremacy Clause claims): DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (CSA voluntarily withdrew these; refiling is not barred by this order). - Judgment to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.