![]() ![]() ![]() The groups challenging the California law said in court papers that Proposition 12 “will transform the pork industry nationwide” because currently nearly all farmers keep sows in pens that do not comply with the law. Nine states also ban sales of fetal tissue from aborted fetuses, according to court filings. Other states have passed similar laws based on moral concerns, including nine that ban products tested on animals and eight that ban eggs produced by caged hens, lawyers for the Humane Society of the United States have pointed out. ![]() As a result, they say, the law has an unlawfully broad extraterritorial effect. The law would also impose an excessive burden on out-of-state entities without having a clear in-state benefit, they argue. The challengers said the measure would impermissibly interfere with interstate commerce in part because almost all of the pork sold in California is produced out of state by farmers who would not currently be in compliance. The National Pork Producers Council, which represents the pork industry, and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents farming interests, sued in 2019, saying the measure violates a provision of the Constitution called the commerce clause, which has been interpreted to bar states from interfering with interstate commerce. The state’s lawyers pointed out in court papers that voters were told the measure, which is not in effect, would most likely increase the price of pork but provide for more humane living conditions for pigs and potentially reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses. Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation."Ĭalifornians approved Proposition 12 in 2018 with nearly 63% of the vote, a margin of more than 3 million votes. The measure would require that sows have at least 24 square feet of space in their enclosures, allowing them to turn around. Scott Hays, the president of the National Pork Producers Council, which challenged the measure, said in a statement: "We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s opinion. While it is long established that states cannot use their laws to discriminate against out-of-state interests, the California law is focused on regulating the sale of pork within its own borders, he said. "While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list," Gorsuch said. Groups that back California had warned that a broad ruling against it could limit states’ authority to enact laws about a wide variety of issues, including measures to address climate change, such as by efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels by promoting renewable energy. The ruling, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, protects the authority of states to enact laws to protect the health and welfare of the public even if the measures have impacts out of state. While five justices said the lawsuit should be dismissed, four said it should have been allowed to move forward. ![]() Five justices wrote their own opinions, showing that there was considerable dissension over what legal rationale to adopt. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |