Supreme Court rejects challenge to California's animal-welfare law
The Iowa Pork Producers Association argued the law discriminates against out-of-state producers, a claim based on a legal standard about when state laws overly restrict interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court in 2023 dismissed another challenge to California's law made by the National Pork Producers Council that likewise relied on that standard.
But the Iowa pork farmers hoped that the fractured way the justices reached that 5-4 decision would give them an opening.
At issue was a 2018 ballot initiative, Proposition 12, that bans the sale of pork products in California unless the sow from which the butchered pig was born was housed in at least 24 square feet of floor space.
Iowa pork producers contend California gave its own farmers an unfair lead time to meet the new rules.
California said it doesn't have enough pork farmers for Iowa to claim the state engaged in protectionism.
And much of the out-of-state pork industry moved quickly to comply with California's rules so it could sell its products there, lawyers for the state said in filings.
In the court's 2023 opinion, the justices in the majority had different reasons for dismissing that earlier challenge.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, said the law treats California and out-of-state pork farmers equally.
"Companies that choose to sell products in various states must normally comply with the laws of those various states," Gorsuch wrote for the majority. "While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
32 minutes ago
- Times
Trump is more powerful than ever. Can anyone stop him?
Have we reached 'peak Trump'? As the US president performed a victory lap this week after muscling his enormous package of tax and spending cuts through Congress, he reflected on the differences between his first and second terms. 'I think I have more power now,' he told a rally in Iowa on Thursday. 'More gravitas … more power.' Having spent the past few weeks deploying troops to Los Angeles, authorising strikes on Iran and hinting at running for an unconstitutional third term, Trump had hit his self-imposed deadline for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill on July 4. With typical bombast, he announced he would sign it into law beneath a flypast of B-2 Spirit bombers, F-22 Raptors and F-35 stealth fighters. Only weeks ago he shut down the streets of Washington for another military parade, which was organised to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US army but which happened to coincide with his own 79th birthday. Protesters against Trump have taken to staging demonstrations under the banner of 'No Kings'. But speaking in the gleaming White House, where gilded ornaments have been brought in to accord with Trump's tastes, the president insisted he was no monarch. 'I don't feel like a king,' he said recently, against his golden backdrop. 'I have to go through hell to get stuff approved.' In truth, there is little to curb him. The Republicans effectively control the three pillars of US government: they hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court has a 6-3 split in favour of conservative justices. The saga over the One Big Beautiful Bill demonstrated how tame resistance to Trump is on Capitol Hill, where Republicans are so cowed by him that those brave enough to speak out prefer to resign than face the wrath of the Maga base. This week the Republican senator Thom Tillis criticised the cuts to Medicaid, which provides health insurance to the poorest Americans, in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Then he immediately announced he would stand down instead of defending his seat at next year's midterms. • One Big Beautiful Bill summary: what does it mean for Medicaid? Trump has nominated his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, to take Tillis's North Carolina seat. 'She grew up there,' he said. Most world leaders, no matter their electoral successes, have to answer to the stock markets. Yet Trump has seemingly forced Wall Street to accept his protectionist trade agenda after months of turbulence. The Dow Jones, S&P 500 and Nasdaq have all surged in recent days. And he looks like the victor in his row with Elon Musk, who has watched Tesla's value fall while Trump has swelled his own fortune by embarking on cryptocurrency ventures that blur the line between business and politics. So can the president be stopped? The Democrats have faint hopes of restricting Trump's power by winning seats in the midterms next November. They believe they can reclaim the House of Representatives, though the Senate looks more challenging. The left of the party has been energised by the campaign of the youthful Zohran Mamdani, the frontrunner in the New York mayoral elections. Yet Trump, a relentless campaigner who gave freewheeling speeches in Iowa and Florida this week as part of a packed schedule that would have surely exhausted his predecessor, appears up for the fight. Despite his age there is little sign Trump's stamina is waning — nor his appetite for power. At the end of the week in which he succeeded in passing flagship legislation, he returned to a refrain from his first spell in office and the campaign trail,by sharing online the front page of the New York Post with the headline: 'Tired of winning yet?'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
SNP warned to update guidance on single-sex spaces within days
The SNP government faces legal action as early as next week if it fails to comply with the Supreme Court decision banning transgender people from single-sex facilities. Sex Matters, the human rights charity, issued a fresh ultimatum to ministers to update the policy on access to lavatories in government properties. It called on them to 'provide clarity to staff and visitors that separate-sex facilities are provided on the basis of biological sex'. The body said legal action could be launched 'without further warning' if the SNP failed to stop ' unlawful practices ' by Wednesday. The move follows a threat of legal action made by the charity last month unless policies allowing trans people to access women-only spaces were 'suspended with immediate effect'. John Swinney, the First Minister, has said Scotland's public sector should await guidance on implementing the ruling from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before acting. Correspondence released by the charity showed that on June 27, the Scottish Government responded that it 'accepts the judgement of the Supreme Court' in April and is taking action to implement the ruling. It includes establishing a Short Life Working Group to help 'towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling'. In a response sent on Wednesday, Sex Matters said it suggests that the Scottish Government 'now recognises that it cannot wait for the EHRC to finalise its guidance before taking necessary steps to bring its own policies in line with the law'. It said a 'particularly straightforward and urgent step' is for SNP ministers to recall the policies on single-sex facilities in workplaces controlled by the Scottish Government. Sex Matters pointed out that the Scottish Government estate is made up of 66 owned and leased sites, including offices, stores and buildings in the field. It said these are 'well-provisioned with toilet facilities, with a total of 1,016 available across the core estate' for about 9,000 staff. The charity added that toilets are generally provided as a mixture of unisex 'superloos' and traditional separate-sex cubicles urinals, as part of the commitment to meet the needs of all staff including 'providing the best support possible for all trans members of staff'. Of the total number of toilet facilities, 18 per cent are provided as 'superloos'; a toilet and wash-hand basin in a separate room, lockable from the inside, intended for use by one person at a time. The Scottish Government's Trans and Non Binary Equality and Inclusion Policy states that ' trans staff should choose to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with'. In its letter, Sex Matters argued: 'The problem is not lack of infrastructure, but that the Scottish Government has been, and continues to operate an unlawful policy on toilets in its workplaces. 'That is male staff who identify as trans or non-binary can use the 'women's' facilities and female staff who identify as trans or non-binary can use the 'men's'. This policy is clearly unlawful.' The letter states: 'As far as we can see there is nothing to stop the Scottish Government immediately bringing the policy on toilets into line with the law, by making a statement that all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available.' It adds: 'This would be in line with the Supreme Court judgement and the action taken by the Scottish Parliament. It is clearly a reasonably practical step in order to address the risk of individuals using opposite-sex toilets and other facilities.' Scottish Conservative equalities spokesperson Tess White MSP said: 'The SNP government must stop dragging its heels. 'The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear, and so was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's guidance in the wake of it, so there is no excuse for the SNP failing to comply fully with the law now. John Swinney's dithering is creating confusion where there should be none.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'The Scottish Government has made clear it accepts the Supreme Court ruling and since April has been taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence of the ruling. That work is ongoing.'
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers – with the latest letter demanding action by a deadline of next Wednesday. The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. 'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. 'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' Commenting on the campaigners' letter, Scottish Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'The SNP Government must stop dragging its heels. 'The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear, and so was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's guidance in the wake of it, so there is no excuse for the SNP failing to comply fully with the law now. 'Indeed, their failure to do so is leaving the Scottish Government and its public bodies open to the legal challenge Sex Matters are threatening.' The government has been approached for further comment.
