U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston has largely upheld Massachusetts’ Q3 pork law, rejecting an industry-backed attempt to block its enforcement. This law, known as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, bans the sale of pork from pigs kept in tightly confined spaces. Key points of the ruling include:
• Federal preemption rejected: Judge Young dismissed arguments from Missouri-based pork producer Triumph Foods and out-of-state hog farmers that the Federal Meat Inspection Act preempted the state law. The plaintiffs claimed that the state law created additional, different requirements for pig handling than the federal law provided.
• Scope of the law: The judge determined that Massachusetts’ law merely bans the sale of non-compliant pork meat and does not regulate slaughterhouse operations directly. This distinction was crucial in rejecting the preemption argument.
• Partial unconstitutionality: While the majority of the law was upheld, Judge Young did rule that a specific provision known as the “slaughterhouse exception” was unconstitutional. This exception allowed certain processors to directly sell non-compliant pork to consumers.
• Severability: Importantly, the judge determined that the unconstitutional provision could be severed from the rest of the law, allowing the main components of the legislation to remain in effect.
• Background of the law: The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act was enacted through a 2016 ballot initiative, with 77% of voters supporting it. It prohibits the sale of pork, veal, and eggs from animals that do not meet certain minimum space requirements for confinement.
• Constitutional considerations: The case involved the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from enacting laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce.
• Ongoing legal process: Triumph Foods now has the opportunity to reassert a previously dismissed claim regarding federal preemption. The company argues that without the exemption, the state law conflicts with federal inspection regulations.
Triumph Foods CEO Matt England in a statement called the ruling disappointing and said his company plans to appeal.
Bottom line: This ruling represents a significant victory for animal welfare advocates and supporters of the Massachusetts law. However, it also highlights the ongoing legal challenges faced by state-level animal welfare legislation in the context of interstate commerce and federal regulations. The case (Triumph Foods, LLC, et al, v. Campbell, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 23-cv-11671) may continue to evolve as the plaintiffs consider their next legal steps.