LegisTrack
Back to all bills
S 1326119th CongressIn Committee

Food Security and Farm Protection Act

Introduced: Apr 8, 2025
Standard Summary
Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

The Food Security and Farm Protection Act would restrict how states and local jurisdictions can regulate preharvest agricultural production that occurs in another state if those regulations add to federal law or the laws of the state where production occurs. It defines “agricultural products” using the same definition from the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. In addition, the bill creates a broad federal private right of action allowing a wide range of actors—producers, transporters, distributors, consumers, laborers, trade associations, and even governments—to challenge state or local regulations that affect interstate commerce in agricultural products, seeking to invalidate those regulations and to recover damages for economic losses. The act also provides for a preliminary injunction in such lawsuits and sets a 10-year statute of limitations. The jurisdiction for these actions would be federal district courts or other appropriate courts. Overall, the bill aims to shield interstate agricultural production and commerce from state/local regulatory interference, while creating substantial private enforcement leverage against state/local rules. It raises potential questions about constitutional limits on suits against states and about how it would interact with existing environmental, labor, and public health regulations at the state and local level.

Key Points

  • 1Short title: The act may be cited as the “Food Security and Farm Protection Act.”
  • 2Prohibition on interference with cross-border production: States/local governments may not impose standards or conditions on the preharvest production of agricultural products grown in another state if those standards exceed (or are in addition to) federal laws or the laws of the state where production occurs. If no standards apply, the absence of standards is treated as the applicable standard.
  • 3Private right of action to challenge state regulations: A broad set of stakeholders (producers, transporters, distributors, consumers, workers, trade associations, and even governments) may sue to invalidate a state/local regulation affecting agricultural products sold in interstate commerce, and may seek damages for economic losses caused by the regulation.
  • 4Remedies and procedural rules: Courts must issue a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of challenged regulations unless the defendant proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is likely to prevail on the merits and that denying the injunction would cause irreparable harm. The action must be brought within 10 years of when the cause of action arose.
  • 5Jurisdiction and definitions: Suits may be filed in federal district courts or other appropriate courts, with “agricultural products” defined by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, ensuring consistency with existing federal definitions.

Impact Areas

Primary group/area affected- Producers, transporters, distributors, and other participants in interstate agricultural supply chains seeking to farm and sell products across state lines; state and local governments that regulate preharvest activities.Secondary group/area affected- Consumers and laborers in the agricultural sector who may indirectly benefit from reduced cross-border regulatory barriers, as well as trade associations representing farmers and agribusinesses.Additional impacts- Regulatory climate shift: The bill would substantially constrain state and local regulatory authority over preharvest practices for crops sold interstate, potentially limiting environmental, labor, pesticide, water-use, and animal-welfare rules that apply to farming in certain jurisdictions.- Constitutional considerations: The proposed private right to sue state governments for damages and injunctions against state regulations could raise questions under the Eleventh Amendment (sovereign immunity) and the Dormant Commerce Clause, potentially leading to legal challenges.- Federal-state balance and enforcement costs: If enacted, states may incur litigation costs defending against challenges and might modify laws to comply with or avoid triggering the act, altering state regulatory strategies cross-state.
Generated by gpt-5-nano on Nov 19, 2025