Triumph Foods said this has, in part, led to a \u201csharp decline in pork volume sales in California and a 2-3% decline in California\u2019s share of national fresh pork sales.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The defendants \u2014 including state Attorney General Rob Bonta \u2014 have two weeks to file an answer against the Commerce Clause claim. In their initial filing they argued that Triumph Foods had failed to show the existence of any sales of non-compliant meat in California.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Since the law passed, several meat industry groups have challenged it, along with a similar rule in Massachusetts known as Question 3. They argue such state laws increase consumer costs and hurt farmers. Earlier this month the US Supreme Court denied a separate petition<\/a> from Triumph Foods in which the company asked the high court to rule on whether federal law preempts the rules imposed under Massachusetts\u2019 Question 3.<\/p>\n Public health, animal rights and environmental groups have long defended Proposition 12 as offering basic protections for farm animals, and that this is a states\u2019 rights issue. Ralph Henry, senior director of litigation at Humane World for Animals, an intervenor in the California case, was optimistic about the district court\u2019s ruling this week.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re basically down to litigating one inconsequential exception in the law and, even if that exception were to go away, it would have minimal effect and would not undermine the intent and value of the statute,\u201d Henry said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Henry said the remaining argument that the judge said can move forward applies to a provision that non-compliant pork processed at a federally inspected slaughterhouse could be sold from that slaughterhouse. \u201cBut if you\u2019re a restaurant buying that non-compliant pork or a distributor buying that non-compliant pork, you can\u2019t further sell it to anybody,\u201d he said, adding that the plaintiffs have not identified that any such sales have happened.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is an animal welfare and public health measure \u2026 and so no aspect of the law, even this one narrow provision about it not applying to sales that might happen at less than three dozen federally inspected slaughterhouses in California, undermines those animal welfare and public health values,\u201d Henry said.\u00a0<\/p>\n England, however, said the court found Triumph Foods \u201craised valid claims regarding the constitutional limits of state regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis ruling represents an important step forward and marks the first time a court has allowed any challenge against Proposition 12 to proceed,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Farm Bill implications\u00a0<\/p>\n The California ruling this week comes as the future of Proposition 12 has featured prominently in ongoing Farm Bill discussions in Congress. The Farm Bill is a massive piece of legislation renewed roughly every five years that guides the federal government\u2019s food and farm policy.<\/p>\n The House draft version of the Farm Bill,<\/a> released in May, contained a provision commonly referred to as the \u201cSave Our Bacon Act\u201d that specifically targeted Proposition 12 and would bar state or local governments from having protections for animals at farms or those sold within the state that differ from other states\u2019 rules.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cProducers of covered livestock have a federal right to raise and market their covered livestock in interstate commerce,\u201d the House Farm Bill draft reads.<\/p>\n The Senate draft<\/a>, however, did not contain such a provision. The Senate is expected to mark up the bill prior to its August recess.<\/p>\n
![\"Brian](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/c8f31b567ee39b9da5dfac2b1d105b89.jpg\")
<\/p>\n