The Iowa AG is leading the ongoing fight against Massachusetts animal welfare laws. • Iowa Capital Dispatch

The US Supreme Court rejected pork producers' challenges to California's law in May 2023. U.S. District Judge William Young in the District of Massachusetts dismissed most of the lawsuits challenging the Massachusetts law, leaving only one in question, which he rejected in July 2024.

This final claim argued that Massachusetts law, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, was preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Young upheld the law, ruling that it prohibited the sale of non-compliant meat and had no direct impact on slaughterhouse regulations.

The meager The lawsuit filed by Bird and the other states supports Triumph Foods' appeal of the district court's recent decision.

“Massachusetts’ pork ban is complete nonsense,” Bird said in a press release accompanying the briefing. “Massachusetts should not tell Iowans how to raise their pork.”

The letter begins with the hypothesis that Iowa is imposing a trade restriction on shellfish based on the way it was harvested, even though the landlocked state knows little about those processes.

“That’s what Massachusetts is doing here – imposing a harmful and overly burdensome regulatory regime on pork farmers and pork processors located almost entirely outside of Massachusetts,” the letter said.

The letter goes on to say that Q3 “will deny market access.” Out-of-state pork farmers and processors,” “hurt agricultural states,” and “raise the price of pork for all Americans.”

The opposing states argue that the law violates several provisions of the Constitution governing interstate commerce.

The current report argues that allowing states to set their own containment rules would be costly for pork producers, creating a patchwork of regulations.

“Iowa farmers could invest millions of dollars to remodel their hog farms to meet Massachusetts requirements, only to find New York enacting a law requiring higher housing requirements per hog,” the letter said.

Federal lawmakers have been pushing for several years to pass versions of the law to end the suppression of agricultural trade EATSAct to prohibit individual states and local governments from enacting laws that would impose “a standard or condition for the pre-harvest production of agricultural products” sold across state lines.

The bill was introduced in 2023 by Kansas Republican Senator Roger Marshall, with co-sponsors including Senator Joni Ernst and Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

The House Agriculture Committee Farm Bill 2024 website lists a similar “legislative solution” on Proposition 12 and similar state laws.

Due to disagreements over funding, Congress failed to pass a new farm bill before its Sept. 30 deadline. Legislature could pass a new agricultural law when they return on November 12th.

Attorneys General from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming listed in Bird's recent letter.