[ad_1]
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a challenge to the California Animal Welfare Act that bans the sale of pork derived from breeding pigs raised in confined spaces.
In a split court ruling along non-ideological lines, the majority said the bill, known as Prop. He said it was not illegal. The law is currently pending as part of another lawsuit in state court.
Five different judges wrote their opinions, indicating considerable disagreement over what legal basis to adopt.
The ruling, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, protects the state’s ability to enact laws aimed at protecting the health and welfare of its citizens, even if the action has consequences outside the state. Pro-California groups say a broad ruling in favor of California will address a wide range of issues, including measures aimed at addressing climate change, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels by promoting renewable energy. It warned that the state’s ability to enact legislation on .
“The Constitution addresses many serious issues, but the types of pork chops California merchants can sell are not on that list,” Gorsuch said.
It has long been established that states cannot use state laws to discriminate against interests outside the state, but California law is focused on regulating the sale of pork within state borders, he added. .
Californians approved Proposition 12 in 2018 with nearly 63% of the vote, a difference of more than 3 million votes. This measure requires that there is at least 24 square feet of space in the pen where sows can turn around. Lawyers for the state said in court documents that while the measure has not been implemented in practice, it will likely increase the price of pork, but it will provide a more humane living environment for pigs and the risk of food poisoning. He pointed out that voters have been told that there is a possibility of a reduction in income.
The National Pork Producers Council, which represents the pork industry, and the American Farm Federation, which represents agricultural interests, filed a lawsuit in 2019, alleging that the action violated a constitutional clause called the Commerce Clause. Interfering with interstate commerce.
Disputes say the measure unacceptably interferes with interstate commerce because nearly all pork sold in California is now produced outside the state by noncompliant farmers. said it would. They also argue that the law would impose an undue burden on out-of-state entities with no clear benefit within the state. As a result, the law would have unlawfully wide-ranging extraterritorial effects, they say.
Lower courts upheld the move, so dissenters turned to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.
Gorsuch was joined in the majority by conservatives Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett and liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, saying he would reopen the case because the challenge “appears to claim a substantial burden on interstate commerce.”
Conservatives Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh also opposed, as did liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Lawyers for the Humane Society of America have passed similar laws in other states based on moral concerns, including nine states banning products tested on animals that have been jailed. Eight states have banned chicken-produced eggs, he said. Nine states also ban the sale of fetal tissue from aborted fetuses, according to court filings.
A group challenging California’s law said in a court document that because nearly every farmer now raises sows in non-compliant pens, Proposition 12 would “transform the pork industry across the country.” would,’ he said.
This view has been challenged by the State of California and its allies, including meat producer Purdue Premium Meat Company, whose Nimman Ranch brand has long been raising pigs that meet Proposition 12’s requirements. I submitted a preparatory document.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is in charge of defending the law, said in court papers that the move was not intended to benefit California producers over their out-of-state competitors, so trade Said it was valid under the terms.
The Biden administration has backed dissenters in the case, with Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger saying Prop. 12 unreasonably restricts interstate commerce, in part because it regulates the welfare of animals not within state borders. Stated. She also argued that the benefits listed do not justify the broad nature of the law, as no health benefits have been established.
[ad_2]
Source link
