Thirteen states are trying to haul California in front of the US Supreme Court.
While there is a myriad of issues that would be worthy of this move, it is the Golden State’s egg law that the potential plaintiffs want cracked open before the nation’s highest court.
More than a dozen states want the U.S. Supreme Court to block a California law requiring any eggs sold there to come from hens that have space to stretch out in their cages.
The lawsuit, which was filed on Monday, alleges that California’s requirements violate the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and are pre-empted by federal law.
A federal appeals court panel rejected a similar argument last year in a separate lawsuit from six states.
Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley is spearheading the new lawsuit. He says it includes new data estimating California’s egg law has cost consumers nationwide up to $350 million annually as a result of higher egg prices since it took effect in 2015.
At question is a state Health and Safety Code regulation that was enacted in 2008 after the passage of a proposition supporting the creation of these rules. The code prohibits the sale of eggs laid by hens caged in a manner that prevents them from “lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and turning around freely.”
Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. These states argue that the California’s code violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and they seek injunctive relief.
They allege the California regulation places burdens on both California egg producers as well as producers based in their states. They also claim the California code raises egg prices for consumers living in California and plaintiffs’ states.
The plaintiffs argue that there is no adequate evidence to support California’s claim that the regulation improves the state’s public health. In addition, the plaintiffs point out it was the California state legislature’s intent to level the egg production playing field against rival states in favor of California producers.
In their motion, plaintiffs argue that the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) preempts state law and should govern this issue. They draw a parallel between the EPIA and a similar Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). Plaintiffs note that in a previous decision, the Supreme Court held that the FMIA prevents states from enacting commerce rules governing the meat industry that would be considered “in addition to or different” from the federal law, itself.
Previously, a federal appeals court panel rejected similar arguments made by six states, ruling that they failed to show the state would affect more than just individual farmers. The new case now cites an economic analysis of the California law while asking the Supreme Court to take up the case directly.
[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 lawsuit cites a study from a University of Missouri economist who concluded that the national price of a dozen eggs has increased between 1.8% and 5.1% since January 2015 because of the California cage requirements. The study said the price increase has added thousands of dollars annually to states’ costs for supplying eggs to prisoners.
The 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.
Legal Insurrection readers may recall that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is a general in the state’s war against President Trump. It appears he may have to cease fire for a few moments, as his office indicates it is reviewing the case.
The sunny-side-up aspect of this development is that it appears that the normal states have discovered that lawfare can be used against California to contain and control the progressive inanity that comes out of this region.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.