Raw Milk & PMAs after Triple Oaks: did the state blink—or regroup?

When the state blinked, farmers cheered—but Virginia’s retreat in the Triple Oaks case may be the calm before the next strike.

and

Oct 04, 2025

Virginia’s sudden nonsuit against Triple Oaks looks far less like surrender than a tactical reset. The state stepped back before a courtroom fight, but law and precedent make it easy to refile—especially with Florida’s recent raw-milk illness cluster giving regulators fresh political cover.

The Case of Triple Oaks Farm

In Campbell County, VA, Triple Oaks Farm—a Private Membership Association run by Bryson and Mackenzie Lipscomb—was sued by the Virginia Department of Health in July 2025, accused of illegally selling raw milk to the public despite its members-only structure. A hearing was noticed for Monday, Sept. 22, and the case drew movement attention (Joel Salatin urged supporters to “stand” with the farm). But the week before the hearing, the Commonwealth voluntarily nonsuited (dropped) the case, ending this round without a ruling on the merits.

What happened or rather what was postponed…

In mid-September, the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) withdrew its lawsuit alleging that Triple Oaks Farm was illegally selling raw milk to the public despite operating as a Private Membership Association (PMA). Local TV reported the withdrawal and carried the farm’s claim of “government overreach.” Joel Salatin, who amplified the case to his audience, posted “WE WON,” framing the nonsuit as a movement victory.

But in Virginia, a nonsuit is not a judgment on the merits—it’s a do-over. State law lets a plaintiff unilaterally dismiss and typically re-file within six months (the well-known “savings period”). Courts and practitioners describe nonsuit as a procedural “pause” to regroup on pleadings, evidence, and witnesses—not a capitulation.

Read the tea leaves: Dropping the case before a contested hearing suggests VDH preferred to retool: tighten factual allegations (e.g., how offers were made, who could buy, labeling, sanitation records) and return on stronger ground rather than risk an early loss that PMA advocates would trumpet as precedent.

Why Florida’s outbreak matters—politically and legally

In August, the Florida Department of Health named Keely Farms Dairy in New Smyrna Beach as the source of 21 illnesses since January (Campylobacter and STEC E. coli), including six children and seven hospitalizations, with at least two severe complications. Florida issued a public advisory; national outlets carried the story. Even though raw milk for human consumption is illegal in Florida, sales labeled as “pet food” are common—a dynamic health officials highlighted.

I should note hear that until that August announcement (ironically timed with the Triple Oaks Farm case) Keely Farms Dairy was never contacted or made aware of these cases. A single lawsuit was filed against Keely Farms Dairy, but the dairy learned of the earlier outbreaks on the same day as the public.

For regulators elsewhere, the Florida event is Exhibit A for continued, aggressive oversight: outbreaks create momentum. Expect prosecutors and health departments to argue that PMA structure ≠ food-safety exemption when offerings function like public retail (web promos, open pick-ups, or “DM to buy” posts) and when sanitation documentation is thin.

PMAs vs. public health: the core disconnect

PMA framing (advocates): A private, members-only association is a closed community transacting among consenting adults, not the “public.” So, they say, retail rules for public sales shouldn’t apply—especially when products are “for members only.” Salatin’s blog captured this mood, celebrating Triple Oaks’ reprieve as a proof-of-concept for PMA strategy.

Agency framing (regulators): Health departments see functional public access, not labels. If marketing is visible to anyone, prices are publicly posted, or pick-ups resemble retail, they treat it as a public offering. And they point to current epidemiology (like Florida) and longstanding federal/state positions warning that raw milk carries a higher risk of pathogens, particularly for kids.

Result: Both sides talk past each other—one argues membership theory; the other argues exposure and foreseeable risk.

National Context: The Pattern Behind Triple Oaks

The Virginia case against Triple Oaks Farm didn’t happen in isolation—it’s part of a growing national pattern of legal tension between Private Membership Associations (PMAs) and state regulators over raw dairy. In the months leading up to Triple Oaks’ nonsuit, similar enforcement actions unfolded across the Midwest and Northeast. Michigan’s Nourish Cooperative saw its inventory of raw milk, butter, and cheese destroyed under a licensing crackdown, while Pennsylvania’s Amos Miller continued his long-running legal fight over permit requirements and interstate sales. Together, these cases illustrate how states are coordinating a unified legal front: tightening definitions of “private” commerce, rejecting “pet food” loopholes, and reasserting that raw dairy distribution—no matter the contractual wrapper—remains a regulated public activity. Understanding what happened in Michigan and Pennsylvania helps explain where Virginia’s enforcement strategy may be headed next.

What Happened: Michigan & Pennsylvania PMA / Raw Milk Cases

Michigan: Nourish Cooperative — state cracks down under licensing rules

In May 2024, the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development (MDARD) issued a cease-and-desist order against Nourish Cooperative, alleging the co-op was violating state licensing laws while distributing raw milk, raw butter, and other raw dairy items under a feed license model.
MDARD found that selling raw dairy under the feed license – or labeling it as “pet food” – was not permitted under Michigan’s statutes governing feed or dairy. Therefore, those raw dairy products were considered noncompliant.
On July 3, 2024, the court (or regulatory enforcement) ordered destruction of inventory: raw milk, butter, cheese, etc.
The order included that even giving away or repurposing those products (e.g. for pets) was disallowed.
Losses claimed by the co-op were substantial (some sources estimate ~$90,000 worth of raw dairy) due to destroyed inventory.
Local news coverage confirms MDARD considered the co-op in violation, and mandated disposal because raw dairy without proper licensing is tightly restricted in Michigan.

Key takeaway for Michigan: The state allowed raw milk herdshares historically, but the spread of raw dairy products (butter, cheese, etc.) and use of feed licenses or “pet food” labeling as a workaround was aggressively challenged by MDARD. The enforcement was strict: elimination of the product inventory, no repurposing allowed.

Pennsylvania: Amos Miller case — permit requirement, injunction, interstate sales carveout

In January 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, with the Attorney General’s office, filed suit against Amos Miller / Miller’s Organic Farm for selling raw milk and raw milk products without a state permit, and alleged violations of food safety laws after reports of illness tied to his products.
In early 2024, a Lancaster County court entered a preliminary injunction ordering Miller to cease manufacturing, marketing, selling, or distributing raw milk or raw milk products until resolution. The court ordered him to stop marketing to the public and to comply with the permit regime.
The judge notably invited Miller to apply for a raw milk permit — if he did, they might reconsider or lift parts of the injunction. The judge viewed the permit route as the lawful path for someone wishing to sell raw milk in Pennsylvania.
Miller’s counsel argued that the permit regime is too narrow: it doesn’t allow some raw dairy products he produces (butter, kefir, soft cheeses) under Pennsylvania law.
In March 2024, the court modified the preliminary injunction so that it explicitly barred only in-state raw milk sales and marketing, not out-of-state transactions. The idea: the wording of Pennsylvania’s milk laws had ambiguity in limiting sales “within this Commonwealth.” The court declined to penalize Miller for interstate sales while the case is pending.
In January 2025, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court (appeals level) affirmed that Miller can continue selling raw milk outside Pennsylvania while the state lawsuit proceeds. However, Miller still cannot legally sell raw milk within Pennsylvania without obtaining the required permit.

Key takeaway for Pennsylvania: The PMA argument did not relieve Miller of the state’s permit requirement for in-state raw dairy sales. The courts partially limited enforcement to within Pennsylvania only, allowing out-of-state sales while litigation is pending, but did not legalize full PMA immunity.

What Triple Oaks means for PMA strategy (practical, not theoretical)

The Virginia nonsuit gives PMAs breathing room but no blanket protection. Nothing in the withdrawal declares PMAs immune from food-safety enforcement. If VDH refiles (a real possibility), the case will likely turn on facts, not the PMA abstraction:

Offer discipline: Were offers and sign-ups truly behind a members-only wall—or effectively public?
Labeling & use: Do labels (e.g., “pet food”) match actual use? Mixed signals are low-hanging fruit for enforcement. Florida’s advisory and reporting called out this gap.
Sanitation & traceability: Are there temperature logs, equipment cleaning SOPs, water tests, batch tracking, and corrective-action records? Florida’s messaging centered on sanitation practices.

Likely next steps to watch

The six-month clock. The savings window from the date of the nonsuit order is the key tell. A new filing inside that window = regroup confirmed. (If they don’t refile, that’s closer to “blink.”)
Guidance memos. If VDH or the AG issues internal/external guidance on PMAs and raw dairy, that signals a coordinated legal theory is coming. (FOIA-able.)
Copy-cat cases. Watch neighboring counties for PMA enforcement—states often move in clusters once a theory is vetted.

Movement barometer: Salatin and the narrative fight

Salatin’s posts—“Time to Stand,” then “We Won”—matter because they mobilize a national readership and reframe a procedural move (nonsuit) as a substantive defeat for the state. That creates political pressure, more media attention, and a rally-around-the-PMA effect. If VDH returns with a refined case, expect another narrative clash: “government overreach” vs. “preventable illness.”

A post by Salatin earlier in the year drives home a point I would like to make here. “Underground Railroad.”

We don’t need to outlaw factory farming…we need only to offer a viable alternative for those who want to escape.

Salatin extends his “Food Emancipation Proclamation” idea and proposes a modern ‘Underground Railroad’ for food freedom—a private, opt-in channel (PMA/neighbor-to-neighbor trade) that lets people exit the “plantation-owner” food regime without trying to outlaw Big Food. He frames abolition-by-prohibition as risky and divisive; instead, he wants a parallel market for those willing to assume different risks.

Historical analogy: He says Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed people only in the Confederacy (not loyal border states), and notes other nations (e.g., Britain) bought out slaveholders to avoid war—both to argue for pragmatic, low-conflict exits rather than frontal bans.
- The history checks out: Lincoln’s order applied to seceded states; border-state slavery persisted until later.
- Britain’s 1833 abolition did pay owners ~£20M (≈40% of annual spending).
Moral frame: He recasts consumers/farmers who want raw milk, home-canned meats, etc., as “escapees” seeking freedom from scale-biased regulation—accepting different safety tradeoffs as a matter of adult consent.
Tactical point: Rather than “abolish Tyson/USDA,” build legal/contractual channels (PMA, private commerce) that regulators won’t (or shouldn’t) pursue—his “we will not send tracking dogs” line.

Is it illegal for a PMA to promote its organization and the benefits of joining the organization?

No, it is not inherently illegal for a PMA to promote its organization or explain the benefits of membership.
However, the line between lawful promotion and illegal public solicitation is very thin. Once promotional content begins to look like a public offer to sell regulated goods (like raw milk), regulators can and do treat it as evidence of public commerce, voiding the “private” claim.

How the Law Sees It

1. Associational Rights Are Protected

Under the First Amendment and state equivalents, individuals can freely associate for lawful purposes. PMAs often rely on this constitutional right, arguing that private contracts between consenting members fall outside public regulation.

So, advertising the existence of a PMA — its mission, purpose, benefits, or philosophy — is perfectly legal. You can:

Describe your organization publicly
Explain how membership works
Share educational content about health, farming, or food sovereignty
Invite people to apply for membership

That’s protected speech.

2. Where It Crosses the Line

What’s not protected is when the promotion functions as a public solicitation to buy goods that are otherwise restricted — such as raw milk, uninspected meat, or non-permitted health products.

Key difference:

Legal: “Join our private association to support food freedom and access local farm products reserved for members.”
Risky: “Buy fresh raw milk from us today! Message us to order.”

Regulators (like VDH, USDA, or FDA) interpret the latter as a commercial offer to the public, not private association activity.

3. How Regulators Establish “Public” Behavior

In enforcement cases (like Triple Oaks or Florida’s Keely Farms), agencies look at behavioral evidence:

Public-facing social media ads showing products, prices, or ordering instructions.
Statements like “DM us for milk,” or “available to anyone who signs up” — implying open access.
A “membership” that’s instant, automated, or clearly a formality.
Testimonials or reviews from non-members.

Once those elements appear, a PMA is no longer “private” in the regulator’s eyes — it’s a public business operating under false pretenses.

4. Best Practice: Separate the Message and the Market

You can absolutely:

Publicly advocate for food freedom, raw milk rights, and private association models.
Share educational videos, essays, or testimonials about your community.
Explain how people can apply for membership (without guaranteeing acceptance).
Emphasize that products are available only to members through private agreements.

But:

Keep pricing, product details, pickup instructions, and order forms behind a members-only portal.
Never publicly say or imply that anyone can buy raw milk or meat directly.
Use educational, values-driven language — not sales language.

Triple Oaks Takeaway

VDH likely focused on Triple Oaks’ public-facing activity — Facebook pages, website listings, or local word-of-mouth implying open sales. The nonsuit doesn’t change that risk; it just means the state backed off for now to strengthen its proof.
Florida’s outbreak reinforces how regulators will argue that public exposure to risk overrides private-contract claims.

So…blink or regroup?

Regroup. Virginia’s nonsuit removed a risky near-term hearing but preserved the state’s ability to re-file with a stronger record. Florida’s high-profile illnesses provide fresh momentum for regulators nationwide to challenge PMAs they view as de facto public sellers. For advocates, Triple Oaks is a morale boost—but not a legal shield. The smart move now is operational discipline: make “private” truly private, keep records impeccable, and be ready if the knock on the door comes again.

How to Protect Your PMA: Keeping Private Membership Associations Truly Private

Across America, a quiet legal movement is reshaping how small farmers, co-ops, and food freedom advocates operate.

Instead of battling public health codes head-on, many are forming Private Membership Associations (PMAs) — contractual, members-only organizations that transact food, healthcare, or educational services outside the public marketplace.

So how do you protect your PMA — legally, ethically, and practically — from being dismantled by an overzealous agency?

Let’s break it down.

1. Know What a PMA Actually Is (and Isn’t)

A Private Membership Association isn’t a magical loophole. It’s a contractual structure rooted in your constitutional right to freely associate for lawful purposes.
Members agree — in writing — to form a private, closed community where goods, services, or information are shared exclusively among them.

Think of it like a private club, not a public store:

Members join by invitation or application.
The relationship is contractual and consensual.
Goods and services are exchanged privately, not advertised publicly.
Activities are governed by the association’s bylaws, not general public code.

What it’s not: a shield against legitimate health, safety, or fraud laws. If a PMA operates openly, sells to anyone, or hides unsafe practices behind “private” language, it loses protection immediately.

2. Understand Why Governments Target PMAs

Regulators see risk, not rebellion.
Their mandate is to protect the public from foodborne illness, unsafe products, and misleading claims. If they can prove that your PMA’s activities reach the general public — through advertising, online ordering, or word-of-mouth sales — they’ll argue you’re subject to the same regulations as a grocery store.

That’s exactly what triggered Virginia’s Triple Oaks Farm case. The state claimed the farm’s “members-only” raw-milk sales were effectively public because of online promotion and broad access. When the state abruptly nonsuited (withdrew the case), advocates celebrated — but legally, it was a pause, not a victory. The state can refile within six months, likely with a stronger case.

3. Keep “Private” Private: Your PMA Firewall

To remain lawfully private, your association must act private at every step.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:

A. Membership Is Earned — Not Automatic

Require a written membership application and agreement that outlines rights, responsibilities, and risks.
Review and accept members deliberately — don’t auto-approve anyone who clicks “Join.”
Keep dated membership records and signed contracts.

B. Public Message vs. Private Business

You can promote the mission, but not offer the goods.

OK to say:

“We’re a private association supporting local food freedom. Our members enjoy access to farm-fresh goods unavailable in the public market.”

Risky to say:

“We sell raw milk! Message us to order.”

Public posts, price lists, or open invitations signal commerce, not private association. If the public can join instantly and purchase immediately, regulators will treat your PMA like a retail front.

C. Keep the Money Trail Private

Don’t process member payments through public e-commerce platforms like Shopify or Facebook Checkout.
Use members-only invoices or password-protected portals.
Avoid “Buy Now” buttons — they imply public retail.

D. Maintain Clean Operations

“Private” doesn’t mean “unsanitary.” Keep:

Written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
Temperature and cleaning logs
Batch tracking for products like milk, meat, or preserves

When outbreaks like Florida’s Keely Farms Dairy raw-milk case hit the headlines (21 illnesses, including six children), agencies gain leverage to scrutinize everyone. Good records show you take safety seriously — and often make the difference between education and enforcement.

4. Label Honestly and Consistently

Mismatched messaging is one of the biggest red flags regulators look for.

Don’t label milk “pet food” if everyone knows it’s consumed by humans.
Don’t use generic packaging identical to public-sale brands.
Do include a private-member use statement, batch date, and contact info.

Transparency within your membership builds trust and credibility — and helps you defend your practices if challenged.

5. Avoid Blurring Lines with the Public

These are the pitfalls that most often undo PMAs:

Posting product prices publicly
Accepting payment from non-members
Participating in public farmers markets
Handing out samples or “donations” in exchange for goods
Listing products on Google or Yelp
Using language like “Open to all” or “Available for pickup”

Once you operate “in the stream of commerce,” the PMA structure collapses.

6. Adopt a “Crisis Playbook”

Even with best practices, conflicts happen. Be ready.

Designate a spokesperson. One voice reduces mixed messages.
Document everything. If a regulator contacts you, log dates, names, and details.
Stay polite. Most inspectors are just doing their job — escalation helps no one.
Consult counsel familiar with food-freedom and PMA law before responding in writing.
Never obstruct inspection — you can politely request legal clarification, but physical interference can trigger criminal charges.

7. Protect Your Image: The Public Narrative Matters

When enforcement hits, how you respond determines public perception.
Advocates like Joel Salatin understand this well: he doesn’t just defend the practice — he explains why it matters. A respectful, fact-based public statement can turn a local skirmish into a national conversation about food freedom.

If your PMA becomes a target:

Emphasize community values, not confrontation.
Show you care about safety and transparency.
Let advocates and journalists amplify your message, not emotion.

8. The Balancing Act: Freedom with Responsibility

Private Membership Associations embody a uniquely American ideal — that free people can choose how to feed themselves, trade with neighbors, and live according to conscience.
But that freedom depends on responsibility: honest labeling, sanitation, informed consent, and genuine privacy.

A well-run PMA doesn’t hide; it simply operates within its own lane, with clear contracts and clear boundaries.

Or as Salatin himself might put it:

“The goal isn’t to dodge the law — it’s to build a better model.”

Summary

To protect your PMA:

Keep your membership structure deliberate and documented.
Separate your public advocacy from your private transactions.
Maintain sanitation, labeling, and accountability records.
Avoid public commerce signals — price lists, “DM to buy,” or instant sign-ups.
Stay ready with a crisis response plan.

Do those things, and your PMA stands on strong legal and ethical ground — a true expression of food sovereignty, not a loophole waiting to close.