California’s 2018 anti-animal cruelty law to face U.S. Supreme Court scrutiny
The fate of a 2018 California law requiring more humane living conditions for livestock calves, pigs and chickens is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is hearing oral arguments on Tuesday.
Two-thirds of California voters supported Proposition 12, theballot measure that established minimum space requirements for calves raised for veal, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens. It banned the sale of veal, pork and egg products that violated that requirements.
The National Pork Producers Council challenged the law, arguing that California — which consumes 13% of the nation’s pork but produces very little of it — was imposing an undue burden on predominantly out-of-state pork suppliers.
They contended that the state was in violation of a legal doctrine in constitutional law called the dormant Commerce Clause. It generally restricts states from passing laws that interfere with interstate commerce by favoring in-state industries at the expense of those industries in other states.
In July 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that Proposition 12 has “dramatic upstream effects” requiring “pervasive changes to the pork production industry nationwide,” imposing costs that “mostly fall on non-California transactions.”
However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to successfully argue that the ballot measure violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and so the plaintiffs took the matter before the Supreme Court, which agreed in March to hear the case.
The National Pork Producers Council declined The Bee’s request for interview. In a statement, it said it looked forward to the Supreme Court’s hearing “about how California’s Proposition 12 unconstitutionally regulates commerce outside of the state, including sending California inspectors to farms in Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, and elsewhere, imposing substantial burdens on out-of-state farmers and their customers.”
The NPPC has a powerful ally : The Biden Administration, which filed a “friend of the court” brief earlier this year in support of the plaintiff’s arguments.
Others backing the plaintiffs include the U.S Chamber of Commerce and 26 state attorneys general.
Defending the California law is California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Humane Society of the United States, which sponsored Proposition 12.
“We remain confident that the Supreme Court will reaffirm states’ legal authority to pass a law that prevents cruelty to animals, improves food safety and protects public health,” said Josh Balk, vice president of farm animal welfare at the Humane Society.
Asked whether he felt that the conservative tilt of the current Supreme Court would be an uphill obstacle for the defendants, Balk said “this is a nonpartisan issue,” and that states as politically diverse as Florida, Arizona and Massachusetts all have passed laws similar to Proposition 12.
“If there’s ever an issue to bring partisans together, it’s that to prevent cruelty to animals and to make food safer for our children,” he said.
Balk also pointed to a legal brief defending the law written by “leading conservative Christian thinkers” O. Carter Snead, Mary Eberstadt and Matthew Scully.
“In short, Proposition 12 is not radical legislation seeking to reorder an industry; it is a public reaction to a radical form of cruelty, expressing a basic moral belief that humans should not, through their consumption, participate in the abuse of animals,” they wrote in their brief.
Sherri Dugger, executive director of the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, which filed a brief in support of the law, said Proposition 12 supports a competitive market and consumer choice.
“We want to see the Supreme Court support what consumers want,” Dugger said.
Both Balk and Dugger warned of the precedent that would be set if the Supreme Court were to overturn Proposition 12, with Balk saying that such a decision would “have a big ripple effect” on other state laws.
This story was originally published October 11, 2022 at 5:00 AM.