---
url: 'https://www.fmjlaw.com/minnesota-statute-banning-pfas-or-forever-chemicals-survives-constitutional-challenge-in-federal-court/'
title: Minnesota Statute Banning PFAS or “FOREVER CHEMICALS” Survives Constitutional Challenge in Federal Court
author:
  name: Adam
  url: 'https://www.fmjlaw.com/author/adam-brownfmjlaw-com/'
date: '2025-04-16T20:28:47+00:00'
modified: '2025-04-16T20:49:17+00:00'
type: post
summary: 'As it stands now, Phase I of Minnesota''s PFAS removal law is in full effect.'
categories:
  - Article
  - Thought Leadership
tags:
  - pfas
published: true
---

# Minnesota Statute Banning PFAS or “FOREVER CHEMICALS” Survives Constitutional Challenge in Federal Court

Minnesota manufacturers and other businesses should be aware of a first-of-its-kind law aimed at the sale or distribution in Minnesota of products containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, colloquially known as “PFAS.” This legislation, enacted in 2023 and codified at Minn. Stat. § 116.943, is known as “Amara’s Law.” It was named for Amara Strande, a Minnesotan who advocated for the bill while battling a rare liver cancer believed to be a result of PFAS pollution. [Click here](https://www.fmjlaw.com/minnesotas-new-ban-on-pfas-compounds-and-the-impact-on-products-sold-and-distributed-in-minnesota/) to learn more.

Minnesota’s PFAS law recently survived a preliminary legal challenge in the federal court system, so the chances are probably low that a court will block its implementation. As such, businesses should continue taking steps to ensure compliance.

## Background

PFAS have been widely used by manufacturers across various industries, primarily for their anti-stick, hydrophobic, and temperature resistant qualities. They were utilized in the production of a range of everyday household items including coatings for clothing, carpets, and other products, along with various sealants, wax products and, most notably, non-stick cookware and bakeware. Originally developed in the 1930s, a well-known Minnesota corporation was the first to mass produce PFAS at its facility located in an eastern suburb of the Twin Cities. After decades of PFAS production and PFAS waste disposal, the Minnesota Department of Health (the “MDH”) identified PFAS contamination in drinking well water near the PFAS facility and PFAS disposal sites and soon tracked the contamination across the entire metro area. The discovery prompted remedial efforts by the MDH to restore the environmental and public health dangers now known to be posed by PFAS chemicals that escape into the environment. These health dangers include adverse effects on the liver, metabolism and thyroid, along with reductions in fertility, developmental effects, and cancer. Indeed, Amara Strande’s liver cancer has been considered a result of the PFAS pollution that was especially potent in her hometown, an eastern Twin Cities suburb.

Though PFAS were predominantly manufactured in Minnesota for a significant period of time, traces of the chemicals have been detected in soil samples taken from remote locations on every continent. PFAS can transport long distances through the atmosphere as a gas or particulate material. As a result, they can now be detected in the blood of nearly every American. PFAS earned the moniker “forever chemicals” because they “bioaccumulate,” meaning they do not naturally break down in the environment or in the human body.

## Amara’s Law

Amara’s Law prohibits the sale or distribution in Minnesota of specified products that contain intentionally added PFAS chemicals. PFAS consist of a broad group of chemicals including, as defined by Amara’s Law, “fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.” The statute takes effect over three phases, becoming fully effective on January 1, 2032. Retailers, distributors, and other companies that sell certain products in Minnesota are already subject to the prohibitions and requirements that took effect on January 1, 2025 as part of Phase I, however. It is therefore important for businesses to identify any products sold in Minnesota that contain PFAS to comply with Phase I requirements. Manufacturers in Minnesota and across the U.S. should also prepare to comply with the disclosure requirements of the second phase of Amara’s Law, which becomes effective on January 1, 2026. The requirements imposed by Amara’s law are complicated and are subject to future regulation by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).

Amara’s Law will be implemented in three phases as follows: 1) the prohibition of specified products, effective January 1, 2025; 2) the introduction of information disclosure requirements, effective January 1, 2026; and 3) the prohibition of all remaining products that do not constitute a “currently unavoidable use,” effective January 1, 2032. Minn. Stat. § 116.943, subds. 5(a)–(b), 2, and 5(c). At all three phases, Amara’s Law applies only to “product[s] that [contain] intentionally added PFAS [that are] sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the state.” The MPCA is tasked with enforcing violations of Amara’s Law pursuant to Subdivision 7.

*Phase I – Prohibition of Specified Products (Minn. Stat. § 116.943, subd. 5(a)–(b))*:

Subdivision 5(a) prohibits any person from “sell[ing], offer[ing] for sale, or distribut[ing] for sale in this state the following products if the products contain intentionally added PFAS:”

(1) carpets or rugs;  
(2) cleaning products;  
(3) cookware;  
(4) cosmetics;  
(5) dental floss;  
(6) fabric treatments;  
(7) juvenile products;  
(8) menstruation products;  
(9) textile furnishings;  
(10) ski wax; or  
(11) upholstered furniture.

In addition to the specifically enumerated categories, Amara’s Law grants the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (the “MPCA”) authority to enact rules identifying “additional products by category or use” that would also be subject to the restrictions of subdivision 5(a). Phase I went into effect January 1, 2025, so all manufacturers (or the first domestic importer if the product manufacturer does not have a presence in the U.S.), distributors, and retailers that “sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale” any of the above products should have already identified whether such products contain intentionally added PFAS.

*Phase II – Disclosure Requirements (Minn. Stat. § 116.943, subd. 2)*:

Beginning January 1, 2026, manufacturers will be required to disclose certain information identified in Subdivision 2 to the MPCA Commissioner for each product that contains intentionally added PFAS that is sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota (unless they receive a waiver or extension under Subdivision 3 of the statute). The Commissioner of the MPCA may require PFAS testing on any product being offered for sale in Minnesota under Subdivision 4 if she has “reason to believe” the product contains intentionally added PFAS. If a product is prohibited by subdivision 2 or 5, the manufacturer must provide notice that the product is prohibited by Amara’s Law to any person that sells or offers the product for sale in Minnesota. Alternatively, the Commissioner may provide notice to any such person. If the manufacturer fails to make the required disclosures, *any person* that receives notice that the product is prohibited may not sell, offer for sale, or distribute the product for sale in Minnesota.

*Phase III – Prohibition of All Products Not Excepted (Minn. Stat. § 116.943, subd. 5(c))*:

Finally, beginning January 1, 2032, no person may sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale in Minnesota any product “that contains intentionally added PFAS” regardless of whether the product falls under one of the eleven categories of products subject to Phase I. The Commissioner of the MPCA is granted rulemaking authority to identify specific products that constitute a “currently unavoidable use,” defined by statute as products determined to be “essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society and for which alternatives are not readily available.” Such products determined to constitute a “currently unavoidable use,” along with certain federally regulated products, firefighting foam and food packaging, which are subject to other Minnesota statutes, used products containing intentionally added PFAS and, for some portions of Amara’s Law, certain medical products, constitute the only exceptions to Amara’s Law.

## Federal Constitutional Challenge

In *Cookware Sustainability Alliance v. Kessler, *manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner of the MPCA, seeking to strike down Amara’s Law as unconstitutional. The lawsuit was brought in the Federal District of Minnesota by the Cookware Sustainability Alliance (the “CSA”), a non-profit trade organization whose members are leading manufacturers of non-stick cookware, a product that commonly contains intentionally added PFAS and is subject to Phase I prohibitions. See Minn. Stat. § 116.943, subd. 5(a)(3). The CSA challenged the constitutionality of Amara’s law on three grounds:

(1) that the Phase I and Phase III prohibitions violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by imposing restraints on trade that constitute overt discrimination against out of state manufacturers to the benefit of in-state manufacturers or, alternatively, that such restraints on trade imposes a burden on interstate commerce that is excessive relative to the local benefits accomplished by Amara’s Law;

(2) that the Phase II disclosure requirement compels speech in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and

(3) that the Phase II disclosure requirement is preempted by federal trade secret protection laws and, therefore, violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The CSA immediately moved for a preliminary injunction, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to enjoin the MPCA from enforcing Phase I of Amara’s law pending the litigation. Judge Tunheim denied the CSA’s motion, noting that the CSA’s arguments that Phase I of Amara’s Law violates the Commerce Clause are “highly unlikely” to prevail. *See Cookware Sustainability All. v. Kessler*, No. 25-41, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXS 33248, at *10, *14 (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2025).

Following Judge Tunheim’s ruling, the Commissioner moved to dismiss the CSA’s action in its entirety, arguing that “[n]one of the Alliance’s claims are legally viable.” The court has not yet ruled the CSA’s challenges against Phase II of Amara’s Law, and the case is proceeding.

## The Future of PFAS in Minnesota

Time will tell whether the CSA’s constitutional challenges, or the arguments asserted by any future challengers, will result in Amara’s Law being blocked or amended. As it stands now, however, Phase I of Amara’s law is in full effect and any person or organization selling, offering for sale, or distributing for sale in Minnesota any products containing intentionally added PFAS that are included in any of the eleven categories of products listed above must comply with Subdivision 5 of Amara’s Law.

Manufacturers of any products being offered for sale in Minnesota will also need to comply with Subdivision 4 if the Commissioner directs them to provide testing results that identify whether the product contains PFAS. Likewise, manufacturers should be prepared to comply with the Phase II disclosure requirement upon its implementation on January 1, 2026. The MPCA has indicated its unwillingness to extend a grace period to early violations of Amara’s Law, considering the incremental timeline of the statute’s implementation.

Finally, manufacturers, distributors, or retailers selling or manufacturing products to be sold in Minnesota that contain intentionally added PFAS should be prepared to comply with Amara’s Law by January 1, 2032, unless they sell products exempted under Subdivision 8 or that are previously ruled a “currently unavoidable use” by the MPCA.

If you have questions about the implementation, restrictions and requirements, or enforcement and compliance pertaining to Amara’s Law, please contact [V. John Ella](https://www.fmjlaw.com/professional/v-john-ella/), [Zachary Hennen](https://www.fmjlaw.com/professional/zachary-l-hennen/), or FMJ’s [Manufacturing Team](https://www.fmjlaw.com/practice-area/manufacturing/).

[](https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmjlaw.com%2Fminnesota-statute-banning-pfas-or-forever-chemicals-survives-constitutional-challenge-in-federal-court%2F&linkname=Minnesota%20Statute%20Banning%20PFAS%20or%20%E2%80%9CFOREVER%20CHEMICALS%E2%80%9D%20Survives%20Constitutional%20Challenge%20in%20Federal%20Court)[](https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmjlaw.com%2Fminnesota-statute-banning-pfas-or-forever-chemicals-survives-constitutional-challenge-in-federal-court%2F&linkname=Minnesota%20Statute%20Banning%20PFAS%20or%20%E2%80%9CFOREVER%20CHEMICALS%E2%80%9D%20Survives%20Constitutional%20Challenge%20in%20Federal%20Court)[](https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmjlaw.com%2Fminnesota-statute-banning-pfas-or-forever-chemicals-survives-constitutional-challenge-in-federal-court%2F&linkname=Minnesota%20Statute%20Banning%20PFAS%20or%20%E2%80%9CFOREVER%20CHEMICALS%E2%80%9D%20Survives%20Constitutional%20Challenge%20in%20Federal%20Court)[](https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fmjlaw.com%2Fminnesota-statute-banning-pfas-or-forever-chemicals-survives-constitutional-challenge-in-federal-court%2F&linkname=Minnesota%20Statute%20Banning%20PFAS%20or%20%E2%80%9CFOREVER%20CHEMICALS%E2%80%9D%20Survives%20Constitutional%20Challenge%20in%20Federal%20Court)