The plaintiffs in a Massachusetts federal court case involving Question 3, a 2016 ballot initiative in Massachusetts that bans the sale of pork from hogs born to sows housed in pens that don’t comply with Massachusetts’ standards, asked a judge to rule in their favor regarding a constitutional clause that limits state laws and regulations that may unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce.
On Saturday night, the plaintiffs, which include Triumph Foods, LLC, Christensen Farms Midwest, LLC, The Hanor Company of Wisconsin, LLC, New Fashion Pork, LLP, Eichelberger Farms, Inc., and Allied Producers’ Cooperative filed the motion.
Triumph Foods used the Supreme Court’s May decision concerning California’s Proposition 12 as a reference. In its legal filing, Triumph argued that the ruling against the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) on Prop 12 was specific to a limited number of claims and did not confirm the measure’s constitutionality.
In July, Matt England, Triumph Foods’ president and CEO, stated that “Discriminatory trade restrictions like Q3 and Prop 12 hinder the establishment of resilient, dependable food supply chains throughout the United States” and negatively impact small enterprises, employees, consumers, and public sectors. He emphasized the importance of free and open interstate commerce for the nation’s economic growth.
Earlier this month, 13 attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against Massachusetts.
Attorneys for Massachusetts asked the judge on Sunday for more time to respond to the request for the partial judgment.
Read More:
Massachusetts’s Radical Pork Ban ‘Hogties’ Iowa Pig Farmers, Says Attorney General Bird
