Livestock industry wins Supreme Court appeal (States' Rights?)

[benbradley]

I just read this Supreme Court decision:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/us/scotus-livestock/index.html
As is common in Supreme Court cases, it gets a little complicated, so I hope I'm quoting enough of the article to get the gist of it, but not so much to go over "fair use:"

...
"The Federal Meat Inspection Act regulates slaughterhouses' handling and treatment of non-ambulatory pigs from the moment of their delivery through the end of the meat production process," wrote Justice Elena Kagan. "California's (law) endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place -- except by imposing different requirements. The FMIA expressly preempts such a state law."

That state law became effective in 2009, following shocking undercover video released by the Humane Society. Slaughterhouse workers in San Bernardino County outside Los Angeles were shown dragging, prodding and bulldozing weak, "non-ambulatory" cows into slaughter pens. Water from hoses was used on some cattle lying on their sides, to force them to their feet.

Penal Code 599f would require meat processors to immediately remove downed animals and "humanely" euthanize them. And the sale, purchase or shipment of such animals would be criminally prohibited.

The long-standing Federal Meat Inspection Act also requires animals lying down to be removed, but gives discretion to federal inspectors to determine whether the livestock can recover sufficiently and become fit for slaughter and human consumption. That law expressly prohibits any state regulation "in addition to or different from" the federal requirements. It includes cattle, pigs, sheep and goats.

Bolding mine. So would liberals want California to declare "States' rights" and have their own, more restrictive law concerning humane treatment of animals? (it's usually conservatives who claim "States' rights") Or should only the Federal law apply, and people endeavor to change that?

The Supreme Court has long ruled that interstate commerce is under federal jurisdiction, trumping any state efforts to regulate it.

Oh, so THAT's the excuse. I've seen that one before.

 

[robeiae]

In this case, it's a pretty good excuse, I think. Standards for food that is produced and shipped nationwide need to be the same.

The California law could have easily gone the other way--lowering the standards for putting down animals--and the appeals court would theoretically have had to support that, based on their ruling here. But of course, that wouldn't have happened. And the people backing the state law in this case would have been up in arms over the state law in the theoretical case, insisting that the Federal guidelines trump the state ones.

 

[rugcat]

In this case, it's a pretty good excuse, I think. Standards for food that is produced and shipped nationwide need to be the same.

It's a nuanced question, though, because it involves more protection and more rights (although in this case for animals) instead of less.

As an example, clearly a state cannot decide that federal pollution standards don't apply to them -- if they wish to allow factories (or cars) with no pollution controls whatsoever, they can't do that. The federal government has the right and the duty to protect all its citizens, and their standards trump state desires.

But what if a state like California decides that federal standards are too lax. (Which they've done) The standards the feds set up are still in force -- as a minimum. But if the state wants additional pollution control, should they be barred from enforcing that?

 

[Shadow Dragon]

This is a case where increasing on the federal regulations should be ok for a state to do, but not to decrease it. So then you can have states that increase the humane treatment of humans and quality of food, but no state can allow for worse treatment or lower quality than the federal limit.

 

[clintl]

Much as I hate to say (because I think California law has it right), I think the court ruled correctly. It clearly involves interstate commerce, and the federal government, not the states, have the constitutional power to regulate that. If Congress passes a law concerning this that says state standards cannot be different, it certainly is with its constitutional rights to do so.

 

[veinglory]

The states would be more likely to want to exempt themselves and allow eating down animals than to be more stringent. In which case the Federal law is both more equitable and safer (because a down animal may be a sick one).

 

[robeiae]

It's a nuanced question, though, because it involves more protection and more rights (although in this case for animals) instead of less.

My reading of it is "different," not just "more." I may be wrong, though.

 

[benbradley]

It's a nuanced question, though, because it involves more protection and more rights (although in this case for animals) instead of less.

As an example, clearly a state cannot decide that federal pollution standards don't apply to them -- if they wish to allow factories (or cars) with no pollution controls whatsoever, they can't do that. The federal government has the right and the duty to protect all its citizens, and their standards trump state desires.

But what if a state like California decides that federal standards are too lax. (Which they've done) The standards the feds set up are still in force -- as a minimum. But if the state wants additional pollution control, should they be barred from enforcing that?

California is a great example of that in that (from my understanding) it DOES have stricter vehicle emission (and/or gas mileage) laws than the Federal Government requires.

Clearly automobiles are part of interstate commerce, but is pollution?

How can California get away with stricter pollution laws, but not with this animal rights law? Does this ruling open the door to auto makers and others going to court and striking down California's stricter pollution laws?

Much as I hate to say (because I think California law has it right), I think the court ruled correctly. It clearly involves interstate commerce, and the federal government, not the states, have the constitutional power to regulate that. If Congress passes a law concerning this that says state standards cannot be different, it certainly is with its constitutional rights to do so.

In this case the Interstate Commerce Clause obviously applies (the meat is likely sold outside of California as well as within), but there there's at least one case where (IMHO) a reasonable person might not think it applies, yet the Supreme Court thought so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

 

[clintl]

California is a great example of that in that (from my understanding) it DOES have stricter vehicle emission (and/or gas mileage) laws than the Federal Government requires.

Clearly automobiles are part of interstate commerce, but is pollution?

How can California get away with stricter pollution laws, but not with this animal rights law? Does this ruling open the door to auto makers and others going to court and striking down California's stricter pollution laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

One big reason - Congress has explicitly allowed California to have stricter emissions standards because even with them, it's pretty much impossible for certain parts of California to comply with federal clean air standards. That's primarily because of a combination of California geography, which traps pollutants from the Bay Area in the Central Valley (which the state obviously can't do much about) and the enormous population in the Los Angeles basin. So, no, this ruling should have no effect on California emissions standards.

 

[rugcat]

How can California get away with stricter pollution laws, but not with this animal rights law? Does this ruling open the door to auto makers and others going to court and striking down California's stricter pollution laws?

That's why I think this is such an interesting question, and not as direct as simply one of states' rights.

I don't know what the answer is.

 

[robeiae]

How can California get away with stricter pollution laws, but not with this animal rights law? Does this ruling open the door to auto makers and others going to court and striking down California's stricter pollution laws?

That's why I think this is such an interesting question, and not as direct as simply one of states' rights.

I don't know what the answer is.

Again--though I may be misreading it--it seems like the Calfornia laws in this case would usurp the Federal ones. They'e not addtional protections, they're a different set of rules. Following the State's guidelines would make following the Federal ones impossible.

Kagan, from the article:

"The Federal Meat Inspection Act regulates slaughterhouses' handling and treatment of non-ambulatory pigs from the moment of their delivery through the end of the meat production process," wrote Justice Elena Kagan.

"California's (law) endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place -- except by imposing different requirements. The FMIA expressly preempts such a state law."

Plus, the FMIA apparently specifically prohibts state laws that impose additional or different standards.

So I don't see any doors this ruling is opening. It's a cut and dried ruling and not setting any real precedent, imo.

 

[Don]

Yep. Cali can't get this unless they have the spine to put the Ninth and Tenth Amendments back in their copies of the Constitution, and if they aren't willing to do it for Medical Marijuana patients, they're not gonna do it for cows. It's gonna fall to some smaller state to draw the line in the sand at a later date.

 

[clintl]

The 9th and 10th Amendments have no application in this case because it involves interstate commerce. Regulating interstate commerce is explicitly and exclusively a federal responsibility. The California law is far superior, IMO, but the Supreme Court ruling is constitutionally correct.

 

[veinglory]

Yes a state could go stricter. But that is not the issue with this law. The states want to go less strict and get people to eat animals that arrive for slaughter unable to stand so that the industry can save a few bucks. And if the Feds want to prevent that, I agree with them (i.e. mad cow).

 

[Don]

The 9th and 10th Amendments have no application in this case because it involves interstate commerce. Regulating interstate commerce is explicitly and exclusively a federal responsibility. The California law is far superior, IMO, but the Supreme Court ruling is constitutionally correct.

Yep, as long as people keep accepting the broadest possible interpretation of interstate commerce, they'll continue to get screwed by their federal overlords. Too bad for them.

 

[Monkey]

I agree that the federal standards should be maintained. From what I understand, the problem with this bill--which has been cited upthread--is that it "endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place -- except by imposing different requirements..." which would suggest, to me, that if they were not trying to replace federal legislation, but instead supplement it with state legislation, they'd be fine.

An increase in standards can be achieved through supplementing the federal guidelines. You don't have to try and replace them.

A decrease in standards is harder to achieve through supplementation. You pretty much have to do away with or find a way to mitigate the federal requirements.

Hence, I agree with the ruling.

 

[clintl]

Yep, as long as people keep accepting the broadest possible interpretation of interstate commerce, they'll continue to get screwed by their federal overlords. Too bad for them.

You could take the narrowest possible interpretation in this case, and it would apply. You can't get more of slam dunk case than this.

 

[benbradley]

I think there's some misunderstanding here. The California law, which is what's being disputed in this case, IS MORE STRICT than the Federal law!

This is the California state law (quoting from the article):

Penal Code 599f would require meat processors to immediately remove downed animals and "humanely" euthanize them. And the sale, purchase or shipment of such animals would be criminally prohibited.

This, as it says, is the Federal law (bolding mine to show where it is less strict):

The long-standing Federal Meat Inspection Act also requires animals lying down to be removed, but gives discretion to federal inspectors to determine whether the livestock can recover sufficiently and become fit for slaughter and human consumption. That law expressly prohibits any state regulation "in addition to or different from" the federal requirements. It includes cattle, pigs, sheep and goats.

Yes a state could go stricter. But that is not the issue with this law. The states want to go less strict and get people to eat animals that arrive for slaughter unable to stand so that the industry can save a few bucks. And if the Feds want to prevent that, I agree with them (i.e. mad cow).

Apparently the Supreme Court says a state CANNOT go stricter, and that IS the issue with this law.

The states would be more likely to want to exempt themselves and allow eating down animals than to be more stringent. In which case the Federal law is both more equitable and safer (because a down animal may be a sick one).

Again, that's not the case with the California law that this ruling is about.

I agree that the federal standards should be maintained. From what I understand, the problem with this bill

Maybe you mistyped, but it's a law (both of these are laws, both the Federal law and the California law), not a bill. Courts only hear cases involving laws, not bills.

--which has been cited upthread--is that it "endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place -- except by imposing different requirements..." which would suggest, to me, that if they were not trying to replace federal legislation, but instead supplement it with state legislation, they'd be fine.

I don't think so. The judges clearly understood the intent of the California law, and may have personally agreed with it and its intent, but they ruled the Federal law applies 100 percent, and ONLY the Federal law applies.

An increase in standards can be achieved through supplementing the federal guidelines.

Apparently that was the INTENT of the California law. From how I read this case, a state law cannot "supplement" this Federal law.

You don't have to try and replace them.

A decrease in standards is harder to achieve through supplementation. You pretty much have to do away with or find a way to mitigate the federal requirements.

Hence, I agree with the ruling.

Apparently you COULD have a state law in this area, but it would have to have the exact same wording as the Federal law. So (other than allowing the state to prosecute violations as well as the Federal Government) it would be redundant.

 

[robeiae]

But it's not "more strict" in the sense that it just increases standards. It makes specific actions allowed by Federal law impossible. With the California law in place, there is no opportunity for inspectors to use discretion. And that opportunity is mandated by the Federal law.

In the case of something like emissions laws, California can impose stricter standards and by doing so, Federal standards are still met. So, the comparison doesn't really work.

 

[benbradley]

You could take the narrowest possible interpretation in this case, and it would apply. You can't get more of slam dunk case than this.

It looks like you're right here. I had to double-check, the Interstate Commerce Clause is the last clause here, quoting from the beginning of Section 8 of the US Constitution:

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
...

(From http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America)

The Tenth Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

So NO state can pass any law that affects interstate commerce (without Federal approval).

 

[Monkey]

Maybe you mistyped, but it's a law (both of these are laws, both the Federal law and the California law), not a bill. Courts only hear cases involving laws, not bills.

Yes, sorry, I've been discussing bills a lot more often than laws lately and mistyped.

I don't think so. The judges clearly understood the intent of the California law, and may have personally agreed with it and its intent, but they ruled the Federal law applies 100 percent, and ONLY the Federal law applies.

Of course the federal law applies 100%. A state trying to make laws that mitigate, bypass, or alter federal law isn't going to get far, and that's pretty much what happened here. We can argue about whether the state's rules were stricter or just different, but all that's kind of beside the point--they didn't have the right to overrule, basically, the Federal law.

Apparently that was the INTENT of the California law. From how I read this case, a state law cannot "supplement" this Federal law.

They can't write laws that cover the same thing at the same time at the same place, because then you've automatically created conflict between state and federal laws, which among other things, is a bureaucratic nightmare. But could they increase standards in other areas, and write laws concerning animal inspections and whatnot? I'm certain they could have, and the result would have been standards that went beyond federal requirements.

My earlier point was, that sort of thing is perfectly doable if you want stricter rules...they'd be adding more restrictions on top of the federal ones without in any way altering, ignoring or overstepping the Federal laws.

On the other hand, a ruling that allowed state law to trump federal law would be a boon to those who wanted standards to be more lax. Right now, the Federal law puts sort of a floor on that.