Suit: Mass. voters laid an egg
States say cage law unconstitutional
Massachusetts is being sued by 13 other states that claim a voter-approved law to ban the sale of eggs and other food products from farm animals that are confined in overly restrictive cages is unconstitutional.
The states filed the lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court last week. It follows another action filed by more than a dozen states earlier in the month against a similar law in California.
The 2016 Bay State ballot question passed with a 77 percent vote and requires that only cage-free eggs be sold in the state by 2022, regardless of where the eggs were produced. The law defines a restrictive cage as one that would prevent an egg-laying hen, breeding pig or veal calf from standing up, turning around or fully extending its limbs.
The suit claims Massachusetts is imposing its own regulatory standards on farmers in other states, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause. It says farmers “will have to increase their production costs by decreasing flock or herd size, investing in new infrastructure, and undertaking contentious zoning approval processes.” Attorney General Maura Healey’s office is reviewing the lawsuit.
Paul Shapiro of the Humane Society of the United States said the plaintiffs are “grasping at straws” and he expects the suit to fail.
“Massachusetts has an interest in protecting its consumers from inhumane and substandard production of eggs,” said Shapiro.
The suit by Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin was filed with the Supreme Court because it has jurisdiction over lawsuits between states.
Critics of the cage-free laws also argue they result in price increases. Shapiro said most studies have predicted the law would add only a penny or two to the cost of an egg.