And here we all thought only college fraternities and
Halloween trick-or-treaters had egg fights.
Sounds like California and Oklahoma (et.al.) are gearing-up for one heck
of a hum-dinger!
What’s more, it seems the states are going to force the
Nation’s highest court to finally answer the question of which comes first, the
chicken or the egg. California says, the
chickens should rule the roost, not the eggs.
Oklahoma and a dozen of its buddies disagree.
The question is: can California require chickens be given
more humane treatment at egg farms in other states; and if such coops are not
roomy enough to the satisfaction of Cal., can the state ban the importation of
eggs from those cramped chicken-coops in the other states?
“No room for legs, only eggs” – reportedly says many a
chicken farmer across the nation.
“Well…, you better make room for your chickens’ legs,” replies the
mighty Cal., representing a market of 9 billion eggs per year. “At least, if you want a piece of our
lucrative egg market, you better do as we tell you,” adds Cal.
Oklahoma, tired of being scrambled, fried, and yes, even
poached in the matter, as it sees it, says “we and our 700,000 eggs per year
are gonna’ show you our sunny-side, Cal., and we’ll see you in court! You’re not gonna tell us we have to be more
kind, or more friendly, or more anything
to our chickens! You’all aint got ‘da
right to tell us nothin’! ‘Cause, them there are our chickens! We can do with ‘em as we please! Moreover, we got twelve of our buddy states
gonna’ be joinin’ us in sayin’ the same ‘darn thing! You gonna’ be lookin’ funny with all that egg
on your face after we through with you, Cal.!”
“Oh yea?,” replies Cal.
“By not being lovey-dovey with your chickens, you and your bird-brained
friends must be a few eggs short of a dozen, Oklahoma! And we don’t want to hear another peep out of
you folks.” And from there the hen-pecking
sours even more into a stench of rotten eggs.
It all breaks down to:
Happier chickens v. cheaper eggs at market. For now, however, only goose-eggs are showing
on the scoreboard that is keeping track of the matter. But that
will likely change soon enough, because eggs are gonna’ get tossed and deviled
to supreme heights in this matter. Time
will surely tell which side is the good-egg here.
The stage has been set for the biggest egg-fight of all time
– and it’s gonna’ be extra large, not merely large or any medium fight here. And constitutional doctrine hangs in the
balance. Along with the claimed billions
of dollars in increased/cumulative costs to the chicken farmers and consumers
juxtaposing the more humane treatment of animals, the legal battle could get
hot enough to fry an egg.
With such lofty goals in sight, both sides better bring
their Grade A lawyers and hope their brood can perform in the clutch. Because, at the risk of sounding eggcentric,
it seems like the states numbering a baker’s dozen might have a good argument
that the egg comes first, at least as the matter appears to this blogger who is
currently located in SoCal.
From a Constitutional perspective, does the Commerce Clause
to the U.S. Federal Constitution allow for Cal. to ban the products from other
states that are not friendly enough to their chickens while their birds roost
in the other states, including places like Enid, Oklahoma? Is the interest of the hens in Stillwater
compelling enough to Cal. to allow for it all?
Does the Dormant Commerce Clause already forbid it? Well, we are likely to find out before too
long. But, they’re probably going to
have to break quite a few eggs to prepare this omelette (/omelet).
“A federal appeals court panel rejected similar claims last
year in a separate case brought by six states, ruling that they failed to show
California's law would affect more than just individual farmers. The latest
lawsuit seeks to address that by citing an economic analysis of the California
law. It also asks the Supreme Court to take up the case directly instead of
requiring that it first move through the lower courts.
Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, a Republican who is
running for U.S. Senate in 2018, is leading the lawsuit. Other plaintiff states
are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, along with Oklahoma.” From: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-among-13-states-with-legal-challenge-to-california-egg-law/article/5574816
Its lookin’ to be the battle of the Fly-Over States v. the Left Coast. And the Constitution is
likely to be watching it all with a bird’s eye view. The Fly-Over States are not about to let it
all go to the birds, either. But don’t
count on it to take only three minutes for these eggs to be cooked.
“Proposition 2 was a California ballot proposition in that
state's general election on November 4, 2008. It passed with 63% of the votes
in favor and 37% against. Submitted to the Secretary of State as the Prevention
of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, the initiative's name (as with others such as
Proposition 8) was amended to officially be known as the Standards for
Confining Farm Animals initiative. The official title of the statute enacted by
the proposition is the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. The proposition adds a chapter to Division 20
of the California Health and Safety Code, to prohibit the confinement of
certain farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around
freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The measure deals
with three types of confinement: veal crates, battery cages, and sow gestation
crates.” From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_2_(2008)
““By its extraterritorial regulation of egg producers,
California has single-handedly increased the costs of egg production nationwide
by hundreds of millions of dollars each year,” the lawsuit reads. The issue stems from when voters in
California approved an initiative in 2008 that required the state’s egg
producers give each egg-laying hen at least 116 square inches of space. After
an outcry from California producers that they would be put at a competitive
disadvantage, California lawmakers passed a law that would require all producers
selling eggs in the state to provide the same floor space.” From: http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/iowa-12-other-states-ask-supreme-court-to-overturn-california-egg-law-20171205
“Enter AB 1437. In 2010, the California Legislature made it
a crime to sell a shelled egg in California, if that egg came from a hen that
was confined in a cage not compliant with the Proposition 2 standards. This law
too was effective January 1, 2015.”
From: https://www.calt.iastate.edu/blogpost/whatever-happened-egg-case#_edn1
Health and Safety Code - HSC
DIVISION 20. MISCELLANEOUS HEALTH AND SAFETY PROVISIONS
[24000 - 26217] (Division 20 enacted by
Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. )
CHAPTER 13.8. Farm Animal Cruelty [25990 - 25994]
“Plaintiff States lacked standing under parens patriae
doctrine to pursue claims challenging California laws governing sale of shell
eggs because they had not brought action on behalf of their interest in
physical or economic well-being of residents in general, but rather on behalf
of discrete group of egg farmers whose businesses would allegedly be impacted.
Missouri v. Harris (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014), 58 F. Supp. 3d 1059, 2014, aff'd,
(9th Cir. Cal. Nov. 17, 2016), 842 F.3d 658, 2016, (9th Cir. Cal. Jan. 17,
2017), 847 F.3d 646, 2017.
States lacked parens patriae standing to challenge
California's prohibition against sales of eggs from hens who were not housed in
compliance with California's animal care standards; alleged harm to egg farmers
did not support standing, allegations that the price of eggs to consumers would
fluctuate were speculative, and California's laws were not discriminatory. Mo.
ex rel. Koster v. Harris (9th Cir. Cal. Nov. 17, 2016), 842 F.3d 658, 2016,
modified, (9th Cir. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017), superseded, (9th Cir. Cal. Jan. 17,
2017), 847 F.3d 646, 2017.
Where plaintiff states appealed district court's dismissal
of their complaint for lack of parens patriae standing, since they could not
articulate an interest apart from the interests of particular private parties,
they had not met the first requirement for parens patriae standing; alleging
harm to the egg farmers in the states was insufficient to satisfy the first
prong of parens patriae standing. Mo. ex rel. Koster v. Harris (9th Cir. Cal.
Jan. 17, 2017), 847 F.3d 646, 2017 U.S. App., cert. denied, (U.S. May 30,
2017), 137 S. Ct. 2188, 198 L. Ed. 2d 255, 2017.” From:
Annotated codes, LexisNexis.com (https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/gateway.page) (Cal
Health & Saf Code § 25996),
“Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said the regulation
is placing an excessive burden on farmers and families across the country. “This unconstitutional policy is forcing
farmers to invest in expensive infrastructure and driving up the cost of eggs
for families,” Hunter said in a statement.
Oklahoma's egg production in 2016 was approximately 692 million eggs,
worth nearly $79.1 million.
California produced about 5 billion eggs and imported an
additional 4 billion from other states in 2012, according to the lawsuit.
Thirty percent of those out-of-state eggs came from Iowa, the nation's top egg
producer. About 13 percent of California's egg imports came from Missouri, the
second highest percentage cited in the lawsuit.” From: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-among-13-states-with-legal-challenge-to-california-egg-law/article/5574816
Again, the Fly-Over States are not about to let it all go to
the birds, either. No California
grizzlies to fear in the heartland, they figure. So, it’s no yolking matter here. They mean business! Cal., for its part, thinks those eggheads
leading the opposing charge are on less sure footing than was Humpty Dumpty
before his fall. Cal. believes those
egg-beaters from the other states must have spiked their egg nog a bit too much
this year.
More Info:
“California voters approved a 2008 ballot measure that
required pigs, calves and egg-laying hens to be raised with enough space to
allow them to lie down, stand up, turn around and fully extend their limbs. California legislators later expanded the law
to ban the sale of eggs in the state from any hens that were not raised in
compliance with its animal care standards.”
From: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/business/us-judge-dismisses-6-state-suit-over-california-egg-law.html
(2014).
“Missouri Atty. Gen. Josh Hawley said in a statement that
California's egg law is “a clear attempt by big-government proponents to impose
job-killing regulations” on other states.”
The [Univ. of Mo.] study also estimated that California's egg regulations
have cost U.S. households up to $350 million annually, including about $97
million for those whose incomes are in the lowest one-fifth nationally. From: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-eggs-california-20171204-story.html
“The Supreme Court declined to hear a similar challenge from
Hawley earlier this year, but this lawsuit includes an economic impact study
which he hopes convinces the justices to see it his way.” From: http://fox4kc.com/2017/12/05/led-by-mo-attorney-general-13-states-file-lawsuit-asking-for-end-to-californias-egg-regulations/
AG Hawley Renews Fight to End California’s Restrictive
Farming Regulations
Defending Missouri’s farm communities from aggressive
over-regulation
Dec 4, 2017, 11:26 AM
Worth a look:
“Hunt v.
Washington State Apple Advertising Commission,
432 U.S. 333 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
unanimously struck down a North Carolina law prohibiting the sale of apples in
closed containers marked with any apple grade other than the United States
Department of Agriculture grade. However, displaying the USDA grade was not
required. Washington state, a major apple producer, used apple standards
superior to those used by the USDA. The Court found that North Carolina's law
violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against Washington state apple
producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers.” From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt_v._Washington_State_Apple_Advertising_Commission
For the Washington Apple v. North Carolina case opinion, see
also: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/432/333.html
Other Relevant
Links:
MISSOURI EX REL. KOSTER v. HARRIS, 847 F.3d 646 (2017)
Prior matter
Appeal from State of Missouri, et al. v. Harris, et al., No.
2:14-cv-00341-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014).
Missouri v. Harris, No. 14-17111
California’s Scrambled Eggs
The state’s new chicken-coop law is hitting human beings
hard.
The Dormant Commerce Clause
Winter Storms in California.
No ‘Fly-Over States’ on My Maps
Other
Interesting Media:
14-17111 State of Missouri v. Kamala Harris
Jason Aldean - Fly over States
