 Original article written by Chris Moore The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Massachusetts’ Question 3 animal confinement law, leaving the measure in place despite objections from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, who said they would have granted the petition for review. The case was brought by pork producers Triumph Foods. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Massachusetts’ Question 3 animal confinement law, leaving the measure in place despite objections from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, who said they would have granted the petition for review. The case was brought by pork producers Triumph Foods, Christensen Farms Midwest, The Hanor Company of Wisconsin, New Fashion Pork, Eichelberger Farms and Allied Producers’ Cooperative against Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Approved by Massachusetts voters in 2016, Question 3 prohibits the sale of pork in the state unless it comes from animals raised under specified confinement standards, regardless of where the animals were produced. The law applies to out-of-state pork producers seeking access to the Massachusetts market. The producers argued that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) preempts Question 3 because the law imposes requirements “in addition to, or different than” federal standards governing meat processing. The plaintiffs cited the Supreme Court’s decision in National Meat Association v. Harris, in which the court found that California regulations governing the handling of nonambulatory pigs at slaughterhouses were preempted by the FMIA. According to the producers, Massachusetts and California structured their laws as sales restrictions in an effort to avoid federal preemption. The plaintiffs argued that compliance with Question 3 requires extensive changes throughout the processing chain, including inspection, sorting, slaughter, storage, packaging, labeling, transportation and sales practices. The producers also argued that Question 3 violates the dormant Commerce Clause by regulating production practices outside Massachusetts and discriminating against out-of-state producers. Additional claims alleged violations of the Due Process Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause and Import-Export Clause. The challenge received support from Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and attorneys general from 23 other states, who filed a brief urging the court to strike down the law. The states argued that Massachusetts lacks authority to regulate livestock production practices beyond its borders and that the law imposes significant compliance costs on pork producers nationwide. By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court left Question 3 intact, marking another setback for pork producers challenging state animal housing requirements modeled after California’s Proposition 12. Original article published on Meatingplace.com animal welfarepork productionSCOTUSSupreme CourtComments are closed.
|