NATIONAL FARMERS ORGANIZATION

	Headlines
	Prop 12 Lawsuit Survives Key Ruling Heat Wave Stresses Plains Pastures Sort and Cull Oklahoma to Close 21-Year Poultry Case Spotlight on New World Screwworm Ethanol to Win RFS, One Way or Another Soy,Wheat Inspections Bullish USDA Crop Reports Preview

Prop 12 Lawsuit Survives Key Ruling

Todd Neeley 7/14 1:05 PM

LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- A federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 12 has been narrowed down after a court on Monday dismissed most of the claims brought against the state by Triumph Foods LLC based in St. Joseph, Missouri.

On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several claims from Triumph's lawsuit that alleged Prop 12 unlawfully interferes with the federally regulated pork industry and unfairly discriminates against out-of-state pork producers and processors, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Although the success rate of legal challenges based on the Commerce Clause is very low, the court said it could not render a decision on that part of the lawsuit just yet.

Triumph has argued Prop 12's so-called slaughterhouse exception was unconstitutional.

The meat processor became the first company to challenge the law that makes it a criminal offense and civil violation to sell whole pork meat in California, unless the pig it comes from is born to a sow housed within 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow the animal to turn around without touching an enclosure.

In Prop 12's definition of "sale" it excludes any sale in the state undertaken at an establishment at which mandatory inspection is provided under the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

So, if a sale of whole pork meat occurs on the premises of such facilities in California, such sales are not subject to Prop 12.

The same federal facilities outside of California cannot claim the exception.

"Here, Triumph's FAC (First Amendment complaint) adequately alleges that Proposition 12's slaughterhouse exception substantially burdens the interstate market and the interstate flow of goods," the court said this week.

"Triumph alleges not that the slaughterhouse exception has caused a neutral shift in business from one interstate supplier to another in a nondiscriminatory manner; rather, Triumph alleges that the slaughterhouse exception 'creates a structurally asymmetric regulatory regime' that disproportionately and substantially burdens out-of-state FMIA-inspected pork processors like Triumph who do not own any FMIA-inspected establishments in California and therefore -- unlike in-state processors who have FMIA-inspected establishments in California -- are 'structurally and categorically incapable of availing themselves of the slaughterhouse exception.'"

The court also pointed to the Supreme Court's decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and said it did not foreclose the type of Commerce Clause challenge brought by Triumph, especially as it relates to the structure of the slaughterhouse exception.

Triumph previously sued Massachusetts on Question 3. That animal welfare law, like Prop 12, contains "the identical exemption" referenced in the company's new lawsuit.

In the Massachusetts case, the court held that the same exemption was unconstitutional and struck down that part of the law. Triumph asked the California court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Prop 12 and to declare the law unconstitutional.

There are 1,118 pork processing facilities in the U.S. inspected and approved by USDA, including 34 in California.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in National Meat Association v. Harris that Congress already enacted legislation in this space and that state laws usurping the federal government's role and that disrupt the U.S. food supply are unconstitutional.

In Triumph's lawsuit in Massachusetts, the court ruled in July 2024 that the Federal Meat Inspection Act does not preempt that state's Massachusetts Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.

The court disagreed with Triumph's argument that the state's sales ban on pork products that don't comply with Question 3 should be severed from the law because it includes pork sold by federal facilities.