The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Farm Animal Rights - Chickens Get Their Day in Court
The legal right for chickens and other farm animals to live cruelty-free lives is before the Supreme Court. Back in 2016, I wrote a series of four articles about California’s Proposition 2. This 2008 initiative banned a number of abusive practices and living conditions for farm animals, including overcrowding and the use of cruel battery cages for laying hens that confined each hen to 67 square inches of living space for her entire life. That’s a space smaller than an 8.5×11 sheet of printer paper. A battery caged hen never has a chance to experience running, jumping, roosting, laying her eggs in privacy, or even the simple act of spreading her wings.
Prop 2 passed, and after a plethora of legal challenges, became law in 2015. Right away it became obvious that there were problems with the language of the new law. The law allowed enough space for animals to engage in their natural behaviors. But it didn’t mandate a specific square footage. Result: Broad interpretation. Most factory farmers interpreted that animals could behave naturally in vanishingly small spaces.
In 2018, Prop 12 was written to remedy the problems in Prop 2. The new proposition gave the exact square footage that each type of farm animal should be allowed. It passed with over 60% of the vote. Lawsuits, unsurprisingly, ensued.
One suit was brought by The National Pork Producers and the American Farm Bureau. Why did pork producers care? Because the current practice on large hog farming operations is to confine sows—female breeding hogs—in gestation crates for most of their lives. Gestation crates are metal pens that are so small that the sows can’t even turn around. Prop 12 laws would end that cruel practice. National organizations are bringing suit against California because the new state laws regulate not just food produced in California but food purchased and consumed in California. If Iowa egg and hog farmers want to sell any of their farm products in California, under Prop 12 they’re required to treat their animals in the humane fashion mandated by these new regulations. Why is this a big deal to farmers in Iowa and other states? Well, Californians make up about 12% of the entire breakfast-eating population of the United States. That’s a lot of bacon and eggs.
In the Farm Bureau/Pork Producers suit, the plaintiffs argue that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution states gives Congress the power to "regulate Commerce… among the several States." Consequently, individual states are restricted from regulating commerce in other states. “The inevitable effect of Proposition 12, the plaintiffs say, “is to regulate out-of-state production [because] out-of-state producers must submit to California’s mandated production methods or lose access to California’s large market.”
The Humane Society of the United States, arguing in favor of Prop 12, says that the plaintiffs are “out-of-step with the preponderance of consumers who find animal abuse unacceptable, yet is still trying to hold on to archaic practices – like those banned by Prop 12 – that inflict an immense amount of pain and suffering on animals."
In April of 2020, the US District Court for Southern California dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed. In July of 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed. In March of 2022 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Arguments occurred on October 11.
Some legal scholars are surprised the Supreme Court took up the case since it is currently common practice for states to regulate, within their own borders, products produced in other states. If the court rules against Prop 12, it could signal an end to state-by-state regulation of low-carbon fuel standards or the presence of carcinogens in consumer products.
Questions by the Supreme Court Justices during opening arguments suggested a range of opinion across ideological boundaries:
Liberal Justice Elena Kegan proposed that, “A lot of policy disputes can be incorporated into laws like [Prop 12]”, and worried that such laws would create a situation where states would “constantly be at each other’s throats.”
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said that Prop 12 was “not reaching out and regulating something across state lines or regulating prices.” But was, “about products being sold in California.”
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed that “No one’s forcing them to sell to California.”
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered if “California could pass a law that said we’re not going to buy any pork from companies that don’t require all their employees to be vaccinated or corporations that don’t fund gender-affirming surgery?”
Where will this all go? What will the justices ultimately decide. The ruling is not due until the end of next June. Stay tuned. I’ll share an update right here. Meanwhile, chickens, pigs, and other farm animals should be waiting with bated breath.
Update - June 2023: The Supreme ruled on this case in May, and, good news! They ruled in favor of chickens and other farm animals!
ALL of the Justices rejected the pork industry’s claim that Prop 12’s ban on the sale such products is unconstitutional merely because it affects non-California producers. Justice Gorsuch then was joined by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Thomas, and Coney Barrett in further voting 5-4 to reject the industry’s OTHER claim that the benefits of Prop 12 are outweighed by the negative effects on commerce.
Writing for the five-justice-majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that "While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.
