0
   

Supreme Court to hear case on downed livestock

 
 
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 11:18 am
November 7, 2011
Supreme Court to hear case on downed livestock
By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — California's ban on the commercial slaughter of downed livestock will come before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in a case that pits state vs. federal power.

Gruesome videos and gory facts drove California lawmakers to impose the ban on downed-animal slaughter. Justices, though, will be focused on something a little more antiseptic: whether federal law pre-empts the 2008 state law.

The Obama administration says it does, siding with the National Meat Association in challenging California's prohibition.

"If enforced," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued in a legal brief, the California law "would have a significant potential to create confusion and confrontation between those federal inspectors and state officials."

California lawmakers, allied with Humane Society of the United States activists who exposed the slaughter of downed animals at a San Bernardino County facility, claim that states have the authority to act on their own.

"Cruelty to animals, in particular, has traditionally been regulated by the states, going back nearly 400 years to the Massachusetts Bay Colony," noted J. Scott Ballenger, an attorney for the Humane Society and other groups.

Ballenger, in his legal brief supporting California, cited the 17th century colony's prohibition, written in the language of the time, against "any Tirrany or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are usuallie kept for man's use," as well as less archaically spelled modern state regulations.

The state law in question governs the handling of downed livestock, sometimes called non-ambulatory. These are animals that are so sick or weak that they can't stand on their own. The California law bans their commercial slaughter. Federal law similarly bans the use of downed cattle, but permits the use of downed swine and sheep.

But the case, called National Meat Association v. Harris, and the hourlong oral argument Wednesday morning, concerns much more than a turf struggle. The outcome could tilt the balance in a perennial struggle between state and federal authority.

It's for this reason that Alaska, Washington and 11 other states are siding publicly with California, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is siding with the meat association and livestock industry.

The states want to be able to pass their own laws on a variety of issues without federal action constantly upstaging them. As protection, they want the court to sustain what they call the "long-held" policy that presumes state laws aren't pre-empted unless the federal law explicitly says so.

The Chamber of Commerce, a frequent critic of state laws it deems too onerous, argues from the other side for a more limited presumption against pre-emption.

"The chamber ... is keenly interested in ensuring that the regulatory environment in which its members operate is a consistent one," attorney Kenneth Geller, who's representing the business group, argued in a legal brief.

California's Los Angeles-based deputy attorney general, Susan K. Smith, will represent the state Wednesday, matched up against Minneapolis-based lawyer Steven Wells, who represents the meat association, and an Obama administration lawyer.

Their abstract arguments will have roots in a gritty undercover investigation by the Humane Society of the United States. In January 2008, the organization released a video that depicted brutal treatment of livestock at the Hallmark Meat Packing Co. and the Westland Meat Co. Inc., in Chino, Calif.

The video showed non-ambulatory cows, unable to stand or walk without assistance, being kicked, electrocuted, dragged with chains and rammed with forklifts.

"Footage also showed some workers trying to get ... cows to stand by spraying pressurized water into their noses to simulate drowning," the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently recounted.

The resulting outcry triggered the largest beef recall in U.S. history, covering more than 143 million pounds of meat.

After the recall, the California Legislature toughened the state's law governing slaughterhouses. The new law prohibited using non-ambulatory pigs, sheep, goats or cattle; the law further required that the downed animals be euthanized.

The National Meat Association successfully argued before Fresno, Calif.-based U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill that the Federal Meat Inspection Act pre-empted the state law. The federal law permits the slaughter and sale of downed swine and sheep if they've passed safety inspection.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/07/129576/supreme-court-to-hear-case-on.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz1d8RfvfwU
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 819 • Replies: 1
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 09:56 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
November 9, 2011
Supreme Court skeptical of California's slaughterhouse rule
By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices carved into California's ban on the commercial slaughter of lame livestock Wednesday, leaving the state law's future in doubt.

In a case that pits state vs. federal power, justices repeatedly suggested that California went too far with protecting animals already regulated by federal law and overseen by the U.S. Agriculture Department.

"California should butt out," Justice Antonin Scalia said at one point.

Although more bluntly phrased than most, Scalia's seeming skepticism toward California's livestock-protection law appeared to be widely shared during the hourlong oral argument. No justice seemed sympathetic to the state's case, and some at times sounded downright impatient.

"I don't see how you can argue that you're not trenching on the scope of the (federal) statute," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told California's deputy attorney general, Susan K. Smith.

Sounding dubious, Sotomayor later suggested that Smith was "not seriously arguing" a particular point, while Scalia said of one of Smith's arguments, "That can't be right."

The California law in question prohibits the slaughter of non-ambulatory pigs, sheep, goats or cattle. These are animals that can't walk, because of disease, injury or other causes. The state law further requires that the downed animals be euthanized.

Federal law bans the slaughter of downed cattle, and the challenge heard Wednesday was to the state provision that covers swine.

The Federal Meat Inspection Act specifies that a state can't impose slaughterhouse protections "in addition to or different" from the federal requirements. The National Meat Association, in challenging the state law, argues that the state violated this pre-emption rule.

"A slaughterhouse worker who is on the premises needs to have one set of rules that the worker follows so that the worker knows that if he follows the advice of a federal inspector ... that the slaughterhouse worker won't go to jail," attorney Steven J. Wells argued Wednesday for the meat association.

"Congress has unmistakably ordained that one set of rules govern animal handling and treatment, inspection and determinations of meat quality for sale at federally inspected slaughterhouses from California to Maine," Wells said.

California's attorney responded that the federal law leaves open some possibilities for state regulation, with Smith repeating several times that the California law was "not within the scope" of the federal law and its pre-emption.

Seemingly unconvinced, Justice Elena Kagan said California appeared to be "trying to do the exact same thing" that the Agriculture Department was responsible for, while Justice Stephen Breyer agreed that "slaughtering animals, indeed humanely, is something the (federal) act absolutely deals with."

Alaska, Washington and 11 other states are siding publicly with California, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is siding with the meat association and the livestock industry.

The question for the Supreme Court goes beyond slaughter rules to potentially include any state law that could clash with a federal statute.

States want to be able to pass their own laws without being constantly upstaged by federal action. As protection, they want the court to sustain what they call the "long-held" policy that presumes state laws aren't pre-empted unless the federal law explicitly says so.

The California law that's being challenged passed after a graphic Humane Society of the United States video was released in January 2008. The video depicted brutal treatment of livestock at Hallmark Meat Packing Co. and Westland Meat Co. Inc., in Chino, Calif.

The video showed non-ambulatory cattle being kicked, electrocuted, dragged with chains and rammed with forklifts. In some cases, workers motivated cattle by spraying pressurized water into their nostrils.

The resulting outcry triggered the largest beef recall in U.S. history, in addition to the state law.

The National Meat Association successfully argued before Fresno, Calif.,-based U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill that the Federal Meat Inspection Act pre-empted the state law, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned O'Neill.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/09/129803/supreme-court-skeptical-of-californias.html#ixzz1dJo4u9dR
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Supreme Court to hear case on downed livestock
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/04/2024 at 08:52:11