Hey, there! Log in / Register
State saves your bacon for now; agrees to hold off enforcement of humane pig rearing law until after Supreme Court decides on similar California effort
By adamg on Tue, 08/09/2022 - 3:17pm
Massachusetts has agreed to put off enforcement of a law requiring pigs be raised humanely, which voters approved in 2016, until at least after the Supreme Court rules on a case involving a similar law in California, likely early next year.
In turn, pork producers say they'll keep the bacon and other pork products flowing into Massachusetts and most of the rest of New England, at least for now.
Pork producers and restaurant associations in five of New England's six states sued Massachusetts over regulations - which had been set to go into effect next week - that would require pork shipped here to come only from pigs raised with a certain amount of space and the ability to lie down.
The trade groups argued this violates the interstate commerce provisions of the Constitution, both because almost all our pork comes from other states and because the regulations would have applied to Massachusetts warehouses that supply restaurants and stores in Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross - which involves a similar California law - on Oct. 11. The court typically releases its opinions within 90 days of hearing arguments.
In a ruling today, US District Court Judge Mark Wolf said he agreed with the two sides in the Massachusetts case to put off any action until after the Supreme Court rules.
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Judge's order holding off action in the case | 46.48 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
The voters spoke years ago.
They, not suppositions over what the Supreme Court will say about a CA case, should determine the enforcement of a law.
Once again, restaurant associations and Big Agriculture get their way. Because profit comes before humane conditions. Same argument the Confederate South used.
Right?
The electorate finally gets their head out of their (expletive) for a ballot question after rejecting beer at the grocery store and the right to die, and they still get Heismaned.
I guess the MA Legislature is as legitimate as the Supreme Court.
Huh?
You're vilifying the South for declaring "States' Rights!!" while yourself asserting "States' Rights!!"
Sometimes interstate commerce is rightly called interstate commerce. Deciding how North Carolina hogs should be treated while being raised in North Carolina is a question for the voters of North Carolina and the United States Department of Agriculture.
The South?
Who mentioned the South? States' rights? But of a difference in a State's right to require human treatment of livestock vs a State's right to.... own slaves.
SCOTUS got this
No limits on pigs' rights in the Constitution? 10th amendment got you down? Interstate Commerce Clause to the rescue! For reliable federal protection of all of your unethical business practices, use the Commerce Clause!
Do you like the Affordable Care Act?
Then you’ll love the Interstate Commerce Clause, which allowed the ACA to be constitutional.
So, will the Court use this pig case
to get rid of the Interstate Commerce Clause?
You think the SC will overturn part of the Constitution?
Seriously? Based on a voter referendum?
No, I don't
It was and is a lazy Band-Aid thrust upon us by Haircut Nancy and a kind, funny guy who had no business ever being President.
Best thing the Cheeto did was get the tax hike part of it nuked. Too bad he sucks otherwise. Too bad Mass residents still have to deal with Mitt's RINO scam.
I'll ask it rhetorically again: If health insurance is such a great product, why do those who sell it have to beg government to force you to buy it?
"...violates the interstate
"...violates the interstate commerce provisions of the Constitution, both because almost all our pork comes from other states and because the regulations would have applied to Massachusetts warehouses that supply restaurants and stores in Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine."
Looks like an open and shut case to me. Massachusetts doesn't get to tell other states how their porcine population is treated. Pig farmers in Massachusetts however better take this seriously.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pork producers don't just band together and move the central pork shipping warehouses for the region out of Massachusetts over this. More jobs lost because of well meaning voters.
Yes
...because "pork shipping warehouses" are a major part of our economy.
If someone has a job at one
It's probably a major part of the economy to them.
That can be said...
That can be said of every single business in the Commonwealth. Pushing the "jobs going out of state" button strikes me as the sort of take that's likely to result in stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny.
It was just my opinion of
It was just my opinion of what the out of state pork producers could do. I personally have no idea what type of investment or logistics would be involved in such a move. I'm guessing it wouldn't be economically viable.
Or more opportunity?
Fuck'em. Bye.
Hey, guess what? We suddenly have a lot of opportunity for anyone who wants to be a pork producer to operate in MA with no competitors. We only have one rule you have to follow: don't be an asshole to your pigs.