![]() ![]() The justices granted certiorari, and the justices are hearing oral arguments in the case today. Undeterred, the industry sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the industry’s claim and upheld the initiative as constitutional. Specifically, the trade groups claim that the California law violates so-called “dormant” Commerce Clause principles, and that compliance with California’s pen standards will raise the pork industry’s costs considerably.īoth the federal district court and the U.S. National farm industry groups led by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation promptly brought suit in federal court, challenging Proposition 12 as violative of the U.S. Critically, the initiative bans the sale in California of any meat or egg products from animals whose enclosures are not in compliance with these spatial requirements, which are intended to give the confined farm animals a modicum of space and comfort. That measure is one of a series of animal welfare laws the California electorate has enacted in recent years, Titled the “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,” Proposition 12 imposes new requirements on farmers and ranchers by setting minimum standards for enclosures–pens, cages, etc.–in which various farm animals–including pigs–are confined. The National Pork Producers Council litigation arises from an initiative measure–Proposition 12–that California voters passed overwhelmingly in 2018. The case is National Pork Producers Council v. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in an animal welfare case from California that could have profound, negative impacts on a host of the Golden State’s environmental laws and policies. Industrial Pig Farming (credit: Wikipedia) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |