In the first decades of the 21st century, those working to assure that earth continues to be a viable home for humanity as well as for all other life have been in a crisis regarding their purpose and direction. This is a departure from the past century and a half, when the giants of conservation and environmental protection—personalities such as John Muir, Rachel Carson, and David Brower— were certain of their cause and the actions needed to sustain it.

This Article analyzes the recent proliferation of “tag-gag” laws aimed at undermining the emerging plantbased and cell-based food industries. It examines potential constitutional challenges to these laws, including those based on the First Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, and Due Process Clause, as well as the likely arguments that states will proffer in their defense. It concludes with a discussion of the consequences and implications of various outcomes of these cases, and how animal advocates can responsibly bring these types of constitutional challenges.

We are practitioners for the City of Philadelphia with extensive experience in cases and analysis regarding the extent to which the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has, or has not, preempted local regulation in various subjects of concern to the City. As City attorneys, our perspective is based in our role as advocates for the preservation and defense of the City’s exercise of its home rule powers. In considering the city-state relationship, many of the practical, political and cultural issues addressed in Prof. Richard C.