There are many ways citizens can become involved with the political process. Two of these include electing legislators to enact laws and vote on policies on behalf of their constituents and utilizing the citizen initiated legislative process that is available in their state. As the public becomes more interested in enacting laws to afford welfare protections to farm animals, these processes have been utilized to regulate the industrial farming industry and phase out inhumane means of farm animal confinement. However, as these laws become more common, so too do challenges to these laws by groups that have an interest in maintaining the current structure of industrial farms.
The farming industry has shifted from small family-owned farms to massive agricultural operations, which are efficient and profitable by producing the most amount of animal products on the least amount of land. Many of the recent farm animal welfare protective laws have been aimed at phasing out types of enclosures commonly used for poultry and livestock on these large-scale industrial farms. These include battery cages for egg laying hens, gestation crates for breeding pigs, and veal crates for calves raised for veal. These types of confinement have tremendously detrimental mental and physical effects on the animals housed in them, and can also create public health problems.
To phase out these types of enclosures, many states have enacted legislation to mandate that certain types and species of poultry and livestock are housed in enclosures where they are able to move freely. This can mean that egg laying hens must be confined in conditions where they can lift their wings without touching another bird or the side of their enclosure, or that a pregnant pig must be housed in an enclosure where they can freely turn around without touching the sides of their enclosure. Some of these welfare protections began as citizen-initiated ballot proposals, such as California’s Propositions 2 and 12 (which ban the sale of pork and eggs in California from producers that do not comply with certain farm animal confinement standards). Others passed through legislative initiatives, such as Colorado House Bill 20-1341 (which requires egg farmers to house egg laying hens with a certain amount of usable space).
As these farm animal welfare laws are enacted, people and organizations with an interest in maintaining the current framework within the animal agriculture industry challenge these laws in courts across the U.S. These legal challenges are generally initiated by agricultural interest groups, such as the North American Meat Institute or United Egg Producers, that represent many of the producers within the meat, dairy, and egg industries. These legal challenges can also be brought by states on behalf of the meat, dairy, and egg producers within their borders, though issues with establishing standing can pose a barrier. Lastly, challenges can also be brought by the farmers themselves, though the producers generally need outside financial support to file such lawsuits.
Challengers to farm animal welfare laws sometimes argue that the laws violate the due process clause to the U.S. Constitution. For example, in a case from California, a farmer challenged a law mandating a certain space for egg laying hens on the grounds that the space requirements were unconstitutionally vague. However, the majority of the legal challenges argue that farm animal welfare laws violate the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. These laws can violate the dormant commerce clause by having a discriminatory purpose or effect, being excessively burdensome on interstate commerce, or by violating the "extraterritoriality doctrine," meaning those laws regulate economic conduct outside of the borders of the state in which these laws were enacted.
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross was a recent Supreme Court decision in which a special interest group representing members of the pork industry challenged California’s Proposition 12, a law that renders the sale of pork produced from pigs confined in inhumane housing conditions unlawful in the state of California. Plaintiffs argued that Proposition 12 violated the extraterritoriality doctrine because California was regulating the farming practices of pork producers outside of its borders. However, the Court disagreed, finding California’s law neutral as it imposes the same restrictions on in state and out of state pork producers alike.
As the public interest in farm animal welfare grows, as has been the trend in recent years, elected officials will likely feel pressure to enact laws that regulate the poultry and livestock industries by phasing out inhumane means of animal confinement. However, post National Pork Producers Council, it is also likely that changes to the animal agriculture industry will also occur as a result of legislation in some states, as the producers will have to comply with these laws in order to access the large consumer markets in states like California.