Federal Judge Blocks Enforcement of West Virginia Color Additive Ban

Posted on January 6, 2026

• A West Virginia federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily block enforcement of the state’s ban on seven synthetic color additives, along with BHA and propylparaben. The judge found that West Virginia’s law “fails to give adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited and lacks sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.”
• In October 2025, the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) filed a lawsuit challenging West Virginia’s HB 2354, as we previously blogged. The lawsuit alleged that the ban on the color additives has no scientific basis, ignores safety determinations FDA made when granting the respective color additive petitions, and offers no new evidence that brings the safety of the additives into question.
• IACM brought the lawsuit on three grounds, alleging that the law:
  • Violates the Equal Protection Clause because it singles out manufacturers and users of the named additives without offering a basis for why the additives must be banned;
  • Is a prohibited bill of attainder because, by naming enumerated color additives, it singles out the manufacturers and users of those color additives; and
  • Is unconstitutionally vague because it leaves the door open for arbitrary enforcement because it does not define “poisonous and injurious” and does not prevent other additives from being deemed as such.
• The judge disagreed that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause or is a bill of attainder but granted the preliminary injunction on the grounds that the law is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the judge, the law does not define the term “poisonous or injurious,” and the word “including” following that term renders the list of color additives nonexclusive. The law does not include criteria to guide the determination of which color additives are considered “poisonous or injurious,” meaning that “other color additives could be included without any notice for why or how they are being deemed ‘poisonous or injurious.’” Thus, the law fails to give adequate notice of prohibited conduct and invites arbitrary enforcement.
• Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor this lawsuit and other developments regarding color additives’ regulatory status.