Massachusetts animal welfare law is legal, says federal judge

Rejecting arguments by a Missouri pork processor, U.S. District Judge William Young upheld the legality of a voter-approved Massachusetts state law that requires farmers to give breeding sows room to move around and bars the sale of pork cuts produced outside the state on farms that do not meet the Massachusetts standard. Triumph Foods filed the lawsuit a year ago, soon after the Supreme Court ruled that a similar California law was constitutional, and said it offered a new avenue to challenge the constitutionality of such laws.

“The court now, after careful consideration, determines that the (Massachusetts) Act is not preempted by the FMIA (Federal Meat Inspection Act), and therefore grants the commonwealth’s motion for summary judgment…and denies the pork producers’ motion for summary judgment,” ruled Young in a 19-page decision. “Judgment shall enter for the commonwealth.”

The meat inspection law governs the operations of slaughterhouses and does not extend to state laws on meat marketing, contrary to Triumph Foods’ interpretation, wrote Young. Triumph and the farmers who are its member-owners are not obliged to ship whole pork cuts to Massachusetts, said the judge, who noted that Triumph segregates its products for sale as organic, grass-fed, and other specialty categories.

Known as Question 3, the Massachusetts law was approved in a landslide in a 2016 statewide referendum. California’s Proposition 12 was approved in a statewide referendum in 2018 and took full effect at the start of this year, after the Supreme Court decision and a phase-in period for the food industry.

Triumph Foods was expected to appeal the district court ruling.

To read Young’s decision, click here.