Without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the landmark California law that says table eggs shipped into the state for sale must come from farms that give chickens enough room to stand, turn around, and fully extend their wings. Six egg-producing states, led by Missouri, contended that California violated the Constitution by imposing its standards on farmers in other states.
Their arguments were rejected by U.S. district and appeals courts, leading to the request in February by Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley that the Supreme Court hear the case. “We are disappointed with the court’s decision, but we are as committed as ever to defending Missouri farmers and consumers from out-of-state job-killing regulations,” said Hawley. The Supreme Court agrees to hear only a small number of the thousands of cases filed each year.
The Supreme Court’s action “sends a clear message that other states have no business trying to drag down California’s high ethical standards in preventing cruelty and reducing food safety risks,” said Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Last Nov. 8, voters in Massachusetts passed, by a 3-to-1 margin, a referendum backed by the HSUS that sets similar animal welfare standards for livestock in that state as in California. The HSUS said it was four-for-four in the “anti-factory-farming” referendums.
In 2008, Californians voted in a landslide in favor of Proposition 2, which said egg-laying hens, breeding sows, and veal calves should have enough room to stand, turn around, and extend their limbs. In 2010, legislators set the same standard for eggs shipped into the state. The regulations took effect on Jan. 1, 2015.
The California law set off a buzz of opposition in an industry that relies heavily on the production of eggs by hens housed in so-called battery cages, each of which holds one bird and has floor space roughly the size of a sheet of typing paper. The California standards require more space, which would mean fewer hens per barn as well as new or remodeled barns to meet the requirements. California officials were not immediately available for comment about the Supreme Court action.
“What California had intended to accomplish is the opposite” of what occurred, said Ken Klippen, spokesman for the National Association of Egg Farmers, which supports conventional egg production. Grocery-store egg prices went up, said Klippen, who also contended that larger cages do not lead to better poultry health.
The case tested the boundary between the power of citizens to set sales standards for their states and federal oversight of interstate commerce through uniform rules. At the district court level, producers sued, saying they would have to spend $120 million to remodel laying houses to satisfy California’s standards. U.S. Judge Kimberly Mueller dismissed the lawsuit in October 2014, ruling that it focused on potential losses by farmers rather than on specific harm to the general population.
Even as egg farmers and the states of Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky pursued the California challenge, food companies were increasingly endorsing cage-free egg production. The trade group United Egg Producers estimates that 70 percent of U.S. egg production will shift to cage-free by 2025 under pledges made by 219 grocery chains, food makers, restaurant chains, and food service operators.
To see the docket for the case, No 16-1015, Missouri vs. Becerra, click here.