Fur industry sues over San Francisco sales ban, says city is trying to ‘legislate morality’
An organization representing the fur industry has accused San Francisco of “an attempt to legislate morality” in banning the sale of fur, and now it’s taking the city to court.
The International Fur Federation sued the City and County of San Francisco in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, alleging that the ban, which went into effect Jan. 1, “is so arbitrary as to be ridiculous — as in literally the subject of ridicule.”
“Yet San Francisco’s fur ban goes much farther than mere ridiculousness — it goes so far as to violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution,” the group argues in its complaint.
The group is seeking to overturn the ban, with the head of the fur federation, Mark Oaten, saying in a statement that “if this law is allowed to stand, there’s nothing stopping San Francisco from banning wool, leather, meat, or other products that a small group of activists don’t approve of.”
The group also argues that by banning fur, San Francisco is working against California’s goal of reducing pollution. That’s because the alternative to fur is a plastic product made from fossil fuels.
San Francisco City Attorney spokesman John Coté issued a statement in response to the lawsuit.
“San Francisco’s legislative leaders have made it clear that this city does not condone killing millions of animals a year in fur farms to make a fashion statement. The city’s legislation is lawful, and we will vigorously defend it in court,” Coté said, adding that raising animals for fur consumes excessive energy.
The fur federation also acknowledged the pending state ban on fur sales. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law that bans the sale of fur statewide by 2023.
This lawsuit comes on the heels of a separate lawsuit against the State of California by the State of Louisiana, which is suing to overturn the Golden State’s ban on the sale of alligator products.
A federal judge in December granted Louisiana a temporary restraining order against that law going into effect, which was supposed to happen Jan. 1.
This story was originally published January 13, 2020 at 12:22 PM.
