Court of Appeals Dismisses Pork Producers’ Challenge to California Animal Housing Law | 2021-07-28
California Proposition 12 survived a challenge in a federal appeals court by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which alleged it imposed excessive costs on outside pork producers state who will have to comply with the legal requirements for animal housing. .
“For purposes of the Dormant Trade Clause, laws that increase the costs of compliance, without more, are not a significant burden on interstate commerce,” the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals said in a 3- decision. 0.
The “dormant trade clause” “refers to the prohibition, implicit in the trade clause, against states passing legislation that excessively discriminates or overburdens interstate commerce,” according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School.
“We are disappointed with the court’s decision and maintain our position on Proposition 12: this is a flagrant violation of the trade clause of the US Constitution,” said NPPC spokesman Jim Monroe. “We are evaluating the decision and our next steps.”
The groups’ complaint against the state “does not make a plausible claim that the pork production industry is of such national concern as to be analogous to taxation or interstate travel, where uniform rules are crucial, âthe court said.
In April 2000, a district court dismissed the groups’ complaint, which led to the appeal. The United States Supreme Court recently rejected a petition filed by the North American Meat Institute requesting consideration of a 9e Circuit decision which also upheld an unfavorable district court ruling.
Interested in more coverage and ideas? Receive a free month of Agri-Pulse West
The NPPC and AFBF argued that Proposition 12 has an “impermissible extraterritorial effect”, but the appeals court cited a series of Supreme Court rulings as saying that the “principle of extraterritoriality” should not. apply only to state laws that are âprice control or price affirmation lawsâ.
“It is undisputed that Proposition 12 is neither a price control nor a price affirmation law, as it neither dictates the price of pork products nor binds the price of pork products. pork sold in California at out-of-state prices, âthe court said. .
For more news, visit www.Agri-Pulse.com