Trump administration sues California over egg prices and blames animal welfare laws
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California on Wednesday, challenges voter initiatives that passed in 2018 and 2008. They require that all eggs sold in California come from cage-free hens.
The Trump administration says the law imposes burdensome red tape on the production of eggs and egg products across the country because of the state's outsize role in the national economy.
'It is one thing if California passes laws that affects its own State, it is another when those laws affect other States in violation of the U.S. Constitution,' U.S. Agriculture Brooke Rollins said in a statement Thursday. 'Thankfully, President Trump is standing up against this overreach.'
Egg prices soared last year and earlier this year due in large part to bird flu, which has forced producers to destroy nearly 175 million birds since early 2022. But prices have come down sharply recently. While the Trump administration claims credit for that, seasonal factors are also important. Avian influenza, which is spread by wild birds, tends to spike during the spring and fall migrations and drop in summer.
'Pointing fingers won't change the fact that it is the President's economic policies that have been destructive,' the California Department of Justice said in a statement Friday. 'We'll see him in court.'
The average national price for a dozen Grade A eggs declined to US$5.12 in April and $4.55 in May after reaching a record $6.23 in March, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the May price was still 68.5% higher than a year earlier.
'Trump's back to his favorite hobby: blaming California for literally everything,' Gov. Gavin Newsom's office said in a social media post.
The federal complaint alleges that California contributed to the rise in egg prices with regulations that forced farmers across the country to adopt more expensive production practices. The lawsuit also asserts that it is the federal government's legal prerogative to regulate egg production. So it seeks to permanently block enforcement of the California regulations that flowed from the two ballot measures.
'Americans across the country have suffered the consequences of liberal policies causing massive inflation for everyday items like eggs,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. 'Under President Trump's leadership, we will use the full extent of federal law to ensure that American families are free from oppressive regulatory burdens and restore American prosperity.'
While 2018's Proposition 12 also banned the sale of pork and veal in California from animals raised in cages that don't meet minimum size requirements, the lawsuit only focuses on the state's egg rules.
Humane World for Animals, which was named the Humane Society of the United States when it spearheaded the passage of Proposition 12, says avian influenza and other factors drove up egg prices, not animal welfare laws. And it says much of the U.S. egg industry went cage-free anyway because of demand from consumers who don't want eggs from hens confined to tiny spaces.
'California has prohibited the sale of cruelly produced eggs for more than a decade — law that has been upheld by courts at every level, including the Supreme Court. Blaming 2025 egg prices on these established animal welfare standards shows that this case is about pure politics, not constitutional law,' Sara Amundson, president of the Humane World Action Fund, said in a statement.
The American Egg Board, which represents the industry, said Friday that it will monitor the progress of the lawsuit while continuing to comply with California's laws, and that it appreciates Rollins' efforts to support farmers in their fight against bird flu and to stabilize the egg supply.
'Egg farmers have been both responsive and responsible in meeting changing demand for cage-free eggs, while supporting all types of egg production, and continuing to provide options in the egg case for consumers,' the board said in a statement.
Steve Karnowski, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
33 minutes ago
- National Post
The two ways Trump's tariffs on Canada could collapse — despite his fight to keep them
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Time's up. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump raised the tariff rate on Canadian goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) from 25 to 35 per cent, saying they 'have to pay a fair rate.' The White House claims it's because of Canada's failure to curb the 'ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.' U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, however, show that fentanyl seizures from Canada make up less than 0.1 per cent of total U.S. seizures of the drug; most smuggling comes across the Mexican border. Article content Article content But the future of Trump's policy also rests on shaky ground, and the tariffs could come crashing down even if Canada can't reach a deal at some point. Imposed through a controversially declared 'national emergency' under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the tariffs come with essentially three paths for relief to Canadian exporters and their American customers: the courts and the economy. Article content Article content There is a big question hanging over whether Trump's tariffs are even legal under the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress powers over trade. Trump has bypassed that by claiming he's using presidential IEEPA emergency powers. Article content On Thursday, the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals convened an en banc hearing for oral arguments in challenges to Trump's use of IEEPA. The 11 judges questioned whether the law meant for sanctioning adversaries or freezing assets during emergencies grants Trump the power to impose tariffs, with one judge noting, 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs.'' The White House, meanwhile, says the law grants the president 'broad and flexible' emergency powers, including the ability to regulate imports. Article content 'Based on the tenor and questions of the arguments, it appears that the challengers have the better odds of prevailing,' Thomas Berry, the CATO Institute's director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies said in a statement. 'Several judges peppered the government's attorney with skeptical questions about why a broad term in IEEPA like 'regulate importation' should be read to allow the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.' Article content Article content Trump's lawyers claim his executive order provides the justifications for the tariffs — in Canada's case, fentanyl. But Berry said 'those justifications would not matter if IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs in the first place. That is the cleanest and simplest way to resolve this case, and it appears that the Federal Circuit may be leaning toward that result.' Article content A decision is expected this month, and if it's a resounding pushback from the judges' panel, said Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, the Supreme Court may not even take up the case. If so, he says, 'these Liberation Day tariffs and everything that's been imposed under emergency legislation, IEEPA, that all evaporates.'
National Post
33 minutes ago
- National Post
Daniel Manandhar: I'm 17. I shouldn't be allowed to vote
Article content Article content Supporters of this argument might respond with a Scottish study which found that teenagers allowed to vote at 16 are more likely to continue voting into their 20s. It's difficult enough to get teenagers to attend school these days, but even if the study's conclusion is true, turnout for the sake of turnout alone is not a noble goal if it does not represent an improvement to the function of our democracy. This country does not need an influx of uninformed new voters who largely get their news from TikTok. Article content There are many other cases for lowering the voting age that make equally little sense. Some propose that since 16-year-olds can drive, it's only fair that they have the vote. Ask these people how driving and voting are alike and they will seem perplexed. Another absurd notion is that 16-year-olds can consent to sex, therefore they must be mature enough to vote. It's witless. Article content Article content More creative individuals have suggested that the right to vote for 16-year-olds could be given as a reward — in exchange for passing a civics test, for example. I wonder how much this test would cost taxpayers, and what might be considered an appropriate level of knowledge for teenagers to vote. If voting were a privilege for academic 16-year-olds, teenagers not allowed to vote would be forever discouraged from it. Critically, voting isn't meant to be a reward for the smart — its purpose is to give Canadian adults an equal say in determining the direction of the nation, irrespective of their qualities and flaws. If the safe way to give the vote to 16-year-olds is as a prize, then it shouldn't be given to them at all. Article content Moreover, if you allow 16-year-olds to vote, they should be allowed to run for office. But how would 16-year-old parliamentarians do their job, since we also expect teenagers to be in school? Article content The crux of the argument for lowering the voting age is that teenagers have a stake in our country, and there is no way for them to have their voices heard other than the vote. Isn't this piece proof to the contrary? Article content Article content Elections are fickle things. They have real consequences for everyone, including teenagers. Much can change in four years. Beyond the tired old arguments, Canadians need to consider the cardinal question of trust. Article content I am uncomfortable with the prospect of anyone my age influencing four years of vital policy. Do you trust that impressionable teenagers will settle on the right vision for Canada? I would have been delighted to vote in the last election, but this isn't about my self-interest — it's about the national interest. If you wouldn't trust your 16-year-old child to manage the finances of your household, you shouldn't trust 16-year-olds with the deciding vote over the purse strings of the nation. Article content Article content Article content
National Post
33 minutes ago
- National Post
NP View: The wrong plan, the wrong reasons
Canada's decision to recognize a Palestinian state will likely change little in the world, as our country has refused to play a constructive role in the region for many years, but it confirms for Canadian Jews that their government is not really for them. Article content Since the October 7 attack on Israel, Canada has witnessed an explosion of hate targeting the Jewish community. Jews in Canada have had their businesses targeted, synagogues and schools have been shot at and firebombed, neighbourhoods have been harassed and Ottawa's National Holocaust Monument has been defaced. Article content Article content Article content In the wake of all this, media reports, in this paper and elsewhere, indicate that there are a growing number of Jews who have simply had enough and are fleeing the country — some to Israel (during a war, no less) and others to places like Florida, where hateful protesters aren't allowed to regularly take to the streets to call for the death of Jews. Article content Article content Canada's certainly not the only country that's experienced a dramatic rise in anti-Jewish hate. Hamas has so successfully captured the narrative that there are few places in the world that have been untouched by the toxic rise in antisemitism. Yet few countries have fallen as far as Canada, which not long ago was one of the best places to be a Jew — ever, in the history of the world. Article content It would be disingenuous to place all the blame for this at the feet of the federal Liberals. But our leaders' response to the explosion of hate has consisted of little more than holding conferences and creating duelling antisemitism and Islamophobia czars that have only served to increase tensions. Article content Article content Moreover, despite giving lip service to the atrocities committed on October 7 and their desire for Hamas to release the hostages, prime ministers Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney have only seemed interested in putting pressure on the victim of that heinous crime. Article content Article content In April 2024, former foreign minister Mélanie Joly announced that Canada would cease future arm exports to Israel, leading Israeli Ambassador Iddo Moed to accuse the Liberals of trying to 'increase pressure on Israel,' rather than pressuring Hamas to release the hostages. Article content In the latest slap in the face to Israel, Carney held a press conference on Wednesday announcing his intention to recognize a Palestinian state, but spent much of the time criticizing Israeli government policy, leading to the inescapable conclusion that coercing the Jewish state was one of his primary motivations. (The British were more explicit: agree to a ceasefire or we'll recognize Palestine as a state.)
