BOSTON—Animal protection groups celebrated today’s decision once again affirming the constitutionality of the state’s landmark 2016 ballot measure, Question 3, a measure that prevents breeding pigs, egg-laying hens and calves raised for veal from being kept in cages so small that they are unable to turn around or extend their limbs, and prohibits the in-state sale of products from these cruelly confined animals.
“Today’s outcome is a major victory for democracy and the 78% of Massachusetts voters who said loudly and clearly at the ballot box that they want safer and more humane products on their store shelves,” said Preyel Patel, Massachusetts state director for the Humane Society of the United States.
“We are pleased that the court has determined that the ballot measure is not preempted by federal law and can continue to be enforced, as is the will of Massachusetts voters. The pork industry has run out of tactics to try to delay and overturn this humane measure,” said Kara Holmquist, director of advocacy at the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
“The Animal Rescue League of Boston applauds today’s ruling affirming the rights of Massachusetts voters to enact animal protections in their state. We will continue to advocate to ensure Massachusetts remains a leader in animal welfare,” said Allison Blanck, director of advocacy at the Animal Rescue League of Boston.
In addition to the animal protection groups represented above, other groups that joined the joint amicus briefs supporting the state of Massachusetts included Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Outlook, The Humane League, Farm Sanctuary, Animal Equality and Compassion in World Farming. The amici organizations were major proponents and supporters of the 2016 Question 3 ballot measure, and they are immensely grateful to the Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts for its continued strong defense of Question 3.
Question 3 requires that veal calves, mother pigs and egg-laying hens in the state have enough room to stand up, lie down, turn around and extend their limbs. It also requires that covered pork, eggs and veal sold in the state come from animals with the ability to engage in these behaviors. This case, Triumph Foods v. Campbell, was filed last year and heard by Judge William G. Young, who previously dismissed nearly all of the claims filed by several pork producers and processors who sought to overturn Question 3.
The ruling upholding Question 3 is just the latest among many failed efforts by some big pork corporations to overturn popular state laws restricting sale of products from cruelly confined farm animals. Similar laws have passed in 15 states, including Arizona, Ohio and Florida. Last year, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the industry’s challenge to California’s farm animal law and just last month the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision upholding the same law against a challenge by the Iowa Pork Producers Association. Many producers have already converted to less intensive confinement systems for animal housing. Animal advocates question why a segment of the pork industry continues to try to overturn laws like Question 3 through courts and legislatures instead of working to increase their animal welfare standards in response to popular and regulatory demand.
Timeline:
-
In October of 2023, the court granted the state defendants’ motion to dismiss all but one of 10 claims. The sole remaining claim largely mirrored that which was recently rejected by the Supreme Court in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.
-
In February of 2024, the court struck down a minor exemption in Question 3, leaving the operative provisions of the law intact, but reopening a previously dismissed claim as to whether Question 3 is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
-
Today’s decision resolves the final remaining issue in the case of whether Question 3 is preempted by federal law in favor of state defendants. The court granted the state defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion, holding that “[Question 3] is not preempted by the FMIA.”