A federal judge has dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit challenging several California egg-laying welfare laws including Proposition 12, finding the agency did not have standing to bring the case.
In an order, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi of California’s Central District said DOJ failed to “allege facts supporting a cognizable theory of standing” in its lawsuit challenging a series of California laws imposing animal welfare standards for eggs sold in the state. Challenged laws include Proposition 12, Proposition 2, and AB1437.
Scarsi noted that legal standing requires “injury in fact, causation, and redressability,” but said DOJ “failed to plead facts towards any of the elements.” Instead, when questioned about standing at a hearing, he said DOJ lawyers simply alleged the federal Egg Products Inspection Act preempts the state laws. He also said the agency "presents no binding authority holding that the mere existence of a preempted state law creates a sovereign injury to the federal government.”
"[S]uppose the executive or the decisionmakers at the Department of Justice simply do not like a state law because it is in tension with their policies,” Scarsi wrote. "Without requiring the United States to show some redressable injury, the federal government might initiate a campaign of preemption suits under the aegis of its sovereignty to bring state laws in line with its own political agenda. The potential for abuse of the federal courts for political purposes is manifest."
The decision does not bode well for a similar lawsuit DOJ filed against Michigan over its cage-free law. Egg producers in Michigan criticized the lawsuit. Egg prices have fallen significantly over the past year, from about $6 per dozen to $2.50, according to Federal Reserve data.
Proposition 12, which was passed in 2018 and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2023, prohibits the sale of eggs in the state that don't come from cage-free housing systems, regardless of the state they're from.
In the original lawsuit, DOJ argued Prop 12 has prevented farmers across the U.S. from using previously widespread agricultural production methods, which has helped drive up the price of eggs “by imposing unnecessary red tape" on their production. They claimed Proposition 12 alone significantly increased egg prices and “therefore led to a sizable reduction in consumer surplus," referencing a 2023 Purdue University study that found found a dozen eggs cost California consumers from 25 cents to 73 cents more after the regulation went into effect.
The lawsuit also took aim at Proposition 2, a ballot measure mandating housing requirements for egg-laying hens, and AB1437, which prohibits the sale of eggs produced in violation of animal welfare standards. It claimed all three laws diverge from federal egg standards and, as a result, violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Proposition 2 was enacted in 2008, while AB1437 was enacted in 2010.
In a statement, Wayne Pacelle, the president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy, both of which intervened in the case, called the ruling “spot on” and said the lawsuit was “absurd on its face.”
“When it comes to federal animal welfare standards on the farm, there are no standards whatsoever, so the claim that state farm animal welfare laws are preempted is laughable on its face,” Pacelle said.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com
