logo
The Supreme Court threatens to bring 'Don't Say Gay' to every classroom in America

The Supreme Court threatens to bring 'Don't Say Gay' to every classroom in America

Vox15-04-2025
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.
Remember Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' law?
The unconstitutionally vague law imposed such unclear restrictions on teachers who speak about sexual orientation or gender identity that many feared they could be fired merely for mentioning their spouses. Eventually, Florida agreed to a settlement which affirmed its right to do things like excluding Harvey Milk from the state history curriculum, but which also clarified that teachers may refer to the concept of being gay.
SCOTUS, Explained
Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Now, however, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could impose a regime similar to Florida's original Don't Say Gay law on every public school in the country. The plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor — a group of Muslim and Christian parents — don't specifically ask the justices to ban discussions of homosexuality or gender identity from classrooms. Instead, they seek a right to be notified if their children are about to be taught from certain books they claim contain LGBTQ themes, as well as an opportunity to opt those children out of the lessons.
To grant this request, they want the Court to embrace a legal rule that would place such heavy obligations on teachers who discuss these topics that it is unclear whether they would practically be able to do so. Furthermore, even if public schools tried to comply with these disclosure requirements, they are so burdensome that doing so would likely be impossible.
The case arises out of a Maryland school district's decision to approve a handful of books with LGBTQ themes for use in public school classrooms. While the plaintiffs and the school district appear to agree that some books that focus on queer characters were approved for some purpose, they can't seem to agree on any of the other facts of the case.
The plaintiffs, who are represented by the Becket Fund, an influential legal organization that often represents conservative Catholic causes, list seven books in their brief that they claim the school district approved for classroom use (though the brief acknowledges that two were later withdrawn). The district's brief, by contrast, claims that only five books are at issue. Only three books appear on both parties' lists.
Indeed, as a federal appeals court that heard this case complained, the case record contains no information 'about how any teacher or school employee has actually used any of the Storybooks in the Parents' children's classrooms, how often the Storybooks are actually being used, what any child has been taught in conjunction with their use, or what conversations have ensued about their themes.'
It is quite odd that the highest Court in the nation decided to weigh in on this case before the lower courts have even determined what the case is actually about, especially given it's not even clear that these books have been used in any classroom instruction whatsoever.
The Court's decision to prematurely take up the Mahmoud case, however, is consistent with the current crop of justices' past behavior, which has favored religious — especially Christian — causes.
Just one month after Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation gave the Republican Party a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, five of the Court's Republicans handed down a sweeping decision that revolutionized the Court's approach to religion, giving individuals who object to laws on religious grounds a broad new right to ignore those laws. And that's just one of many decisions the Court has handed down since then which benefit conservative Christian causes.
Related The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution
The Court's Republican majority has appeared quite impatient to remake the law to be much more favorable to the religious right. Still, the legal rule Becket seeks in Mahmoud would be so disruptive to public schools that teachers and administrators can only hope that the justices stay their hand in this case.
The Mahmoud plaintiffs would impose impossible obligations on public schools
The First Amendment does not permit laws — or school district policies, for that matter — 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion. The key word here is 'prohibiting.' As the Supreme Court said in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery (1988), the Constitution's free exercise clause targets government actions that tend 'to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs.'
It's certainly possible to imagine LGBTQ-focused classroom instructions that could violate this rule against coercion. If a teacher required a student who believes that being gay is a sin to write an essay repudiating that belief, for example, that would be unconstitutional. It would also likely be unconstitutional to require this student to read aloud from a pro-gay text.
So it is possible that, once the Mahmoud case is fully litigated and the facts are known, that courts will discover that some of the plaintiffs' rights were violated. Because the Supreme Court took this case up before any of that could happen, however, there is no way to know if the school district complied with the Constitution.
Becket's brief seeks to bypass the normal litigation process and instead impose a new obligation on public schools. Schools, they argue, must notify parents if their children will receive 'instruction on gender and sexuality in violation of their parents' religious beliefs,' and give those parents an opportunity to opt their child out of that instruction.
If it were possible to limit this obligation solely to the plaintiffs in this case, then it might at least be logistically feasible for schools to comply with Becket's proposed rule. But the Constitution does not permit schools to provide a service to people with anti-LGBTQ religious beliefs that it does not also provide to any other person of faith.
Imagine, for example, that a public school offers kosher lunches to Jewish students who request one. Barring extenuating circumstances, it must also offer halal lunches to Muslim students, because the government cannot discriminate against Muslims and in favor of Jews.
The same rule also applies to students with idiosyncratic religious beliefs. Suppose that a school has a dress code which requires all students to wear white shirts. If one student's religion compels him to wear red shirts, and the school permits this student to do so, it must also allow another student from a blue-shirt-wearing religion to depart from the dress code.
This rule against discrimination has profound implications, if Becket's clients prevail. If a school gives a particular accommodation to people with one set of religious beliefs — the belief that their children should not be exposed to literature with LGBTQ characters — then it must provide this same accommodation to any other person with a religious objection to how the school operates.
If Becket's rule were implemented, in other words, every public school would have to provide advance notice to any parent about any lesson that might offend that parent's religious views. But, in a nation as religiously diverse as the United States, it is simply not possible for public schools to comply with such an obligation.
Consider, for example, Bowen v. Roy (1986), a case involving parents who objected, on religious grounds, to the government's decision to issue a Social Security number to their daughter. According to the Court's opinion in Bowen, the girl's father believed that 'he must keep her person and spirit unique, and that the uniqueness of the Social Security number as an identifier' would ''rob the spirit' of his daughter.'
Under Becket's framework, this parent could legally say that he needed to be notified — and allowed to object — before any attempt was made by a school district to assign a unique identification number to his daughter, and other parents might need to be given an opportunity to opt their children out of the school's internal record-keeping system also.
Consider, as well, a federal appeals court's opinion in Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1987), a case very similar to Mahmoud where the appeals court rejected parents' attempt to opt their children out of lessons they disagreed with on religious grounds. Unlike the parents in Mahmoud, however, the parents in Mozert had much broader religious objections. One of them opposed lessons that touched on themes as diverse as 'evolution and 'secular humanism,'' 'futuristic supernaturalism,' 'pacifism, magic and false views of death.'
Under Becket's proposed rule, in other words, schools must provide advance notice if their child will be exposed to works of fantasy like The Chronicles of Narnia or the Harry Potter series, to lessons about famous pacifists like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., to the concept of death, or to 'secular humanism' — however it was defined.
Indeed, if you spend enough time reading old legal cases brought by people of faith, it's possible to uncover a nearly infinite variety of religious believers that, under the Constitution, must be treated with the same dignity and given the same rights as Becket's clients in the Mahmoud case. If public schools were required to provide advance notice of any lesson that might offend any parent's religious views, they would be overwhelmed by this obligation.
Parents would be deluged with paperwork informing them of every minor detail of any upcoming lesson. Teachers would face the impossible task of tracking which students must be shielded from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which students cannot be assigned an ID number, which students must be excused from lessons on the civil rights movement, and which students must never read a book where two women hold hands. And woe betide the poor educator who, without first warning their students' parents, makes a spontaneous remark that might offend someone's religious beliefs.
As Justice Robert Jackson warned in a 1948 concurring opinion, 'if we are to eliminate everything that is objectionable to any of these warring sects or inconsistent with any of their doctrines, we will leave public education in shreds.'
Becket's proposed rule is unworkable even in a limited form
Perhaps recognizing that it would be impossible for schools to inform parents of every single lesson that might offend some person's religious views, Becket spends much of its brief arguing that lessons concerning gender and sexuality are special. They even make the extravagant claim that 'no state has ever affirmatively denied parents access to information and opportunity to opt-their child out from instruction on gender and sexuality.'
The idea that children are not routinely exposed to stories about gender and sexuality would baffle anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Disney canon. Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella are all romances about women who marry princes. Some of the most famous, and widely taught, works of literature are musings on gender and sexuality. Think of the first line of Pride and Prejudice: 'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.'
But let's assume that the Court decides to create a narrowly gerrymandered rule that gives the Mahmoud plaintiffs what they appear to want — advance warning and a right to opt their children out from any exposure to queer gender or sexuality. Even this relatively narrow rule would be a logistical nightmare for public schools, for the simple reason that teachers cannot possibly anticipate everything that will happen in their classrooms and advise parents of it in advance.
Suppose, for example, that during a civics lesson on the structure of America's executive branch of government, a student raises their hand and asks whether any members of President Donald Trump's Cabinet are gay. Is the teacher required to halt the lesson, and immediately call every child's parents to notify them, before they reveal the forbidden knowledge that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a gay man?
Or suppose that a teacher asks their students to read a novel of their own choosing and deliver an oral report on that book to the entire class. Must that teacher also call a halt to a student's book report if the student selects the book Less, a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about a gay writer?
As a practical matter, the only way a school could comply with an obligation to inform parents of any instruction that touches on queer gender or sexuality would be to ban spontaneous discussion of these topics from the classroom altogether. What Becket is asking for is a 'Don't Say Gay' rule on steroids.
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to decide cases before they know what they are about
The Constitution limits the federal judiciary's jurisdiction to 'cases' and 'controversies' where one or more parties can articulate a concrete legal dispute with another party. For nearly all of American history, this provision has been understood to prevent the courts from answering hypothetical questions. When the Washington administration submitted a list of questions to the Supreme Court concerning the new nation's treaty obligations to France, the justices responded with a letter informing President George Washington that they could not answer these questions unless they arose in a proper lawsuit.
One important reason for this rule is that, when judges decide cases involving very particular facts, they can tailor those decisions to the specific dispute between the two parties. Instead of handing down a sweeping, quasi-legislative decree that all public schools are now bound by unworkable disclosure rules, they can craft a legal rule that vindicates a plaintiff's constitutional rights without doing unnecessary harm to institutions.
That is how the Mahmoud case should proceed. The Supreme Court should send it back to the lower courts without a decision — a process known as dismissing the case as 'improvidently granted' — to allow those courts to figure out what is actually going on in this case. Again, it is entirely possible that some of the Mahmoud plaintiffs' rights were violated by their children's school district, and if that is the case then the courts should provide them with appropriate relief.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Most Americans support legal access to abortions in most cases: Survey
Most Americans support legal access to abortions in most cases: Survey

The Hill

time9 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Most Americans support legal access to abortions in most cases: Survey

Most Americans still support legal abortions despite a wave of rollbacks following the Supreme Court's decision overturning the federal right to access the procedure over three years ago, a new survey shows. The AP-NORC Research Center poll, published Thursday, revealed that 64 percent of participants said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About 27 percent of people said the procedure should be illegal in most cases and 9 percent said it should be illegal in all cases. The results were split along party lines. A majority of Democrats, 85 percent, and independents, 67 percent, said they believe abortion should be lawfully permitted in cases of medically terminated pregnancies and use of an abortion pill. On the opposite side, 15 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of independents disagreed, according to the survey. More than half, 58 percent, of Republicans said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while 41 percent of GOP respondents shared an opposite view. The poll also found that an overwhelming majority of respondents, regardless of their political party, said abortions should be allowed if the mother's health is at risk due to pregnancy or in the case of rape, incest or potential fetal abnormality. As states reflect on the impact of the 2022 Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health case — which overturned Roe v. Wade — the survey asked in which cases should medical abortions should be approved. Around 70 percent said abortions, which have increased since the landmark ruling, should be allowed in cases of maternal medical emergencies. A small majority, 56 percent, also said mothers should be permitted to travel to obtain an abortion in a different state if it's illegal where they reside. The AP-NORC poll was conducted from July 10-14 featuring 1,437 U.S. adults. The overall margin of error is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

Columbia made a deal with the Trump administration. Is Harvard next?
Columbia made a deal with the Trump administration. Is Harvard next?

Boston Globe

time9 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Columbia made a deal with the Trump administration. Is Harvard next?

'Based on what I have read and heard so far, the agreement reached between the federal government and Columbia is an excellent template for agreements with other institutions including Harvard,' But it's unclear whether Harvard will follow suit with its own agreement anytime soon — or that the measures Columbia agreed to are ones Harvard is willing to undertake. Advertisement Under the agreement, the New York City school will regain access to billions of dollars in frozen federal funding in exchange for paying $200 million to the federal government over three years and another $21 million addressing alleged civil rights violations against Jewish employees. The university and federal government will also agree on an independent monitor to assess whether Columbia is adequately implementing changes the two parties agreed upon. Advertisement The settlement, however, did not encroach on core principles of academic freedom in a way that some observers feared. Columbia did not admit wrongdoing, continuing to reject allegations it had violated civil rights law. Acting Columbia President Claire Shipman said the deal 'preserves Columbia's autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making.' Many reforms, such as changes to disciplinary processes and adopting a controversial definition of antisemitism, were ones Columbia had already pledged to make — but that Harvard has balked at. Another measure to exclude race as a factor in hiring and admissions practices stemmed from a 2023 Supreme Court decision in a case against Harvard that ruled affirmative action unconstitutional. Both sides were quick to frame the agreement as a win. Shipman called it a 'carefully crafted agreement that protects our institution and our values.' US Education Secretary Linda McMahon, meanwhile, said it amounted to a 'seismic shift in our nation's fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable.' McMahon added that Columbia's reforms were 'a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public' — indicating what the administration may want to see from Harvard moving forward. Trump officials have made clear in recent weeks Harvard is their primary target, seeing it as the strongest place to influence broad cultural changes in higher education. Spinning any agreement with the Trump administration as a win will be far more difficult for Harvard. While Columbia shocked the broader academic community in March by preemptively making changes in line with what the federal government wanted, Harvard has routinely pledged to resist the president and his allies — gaining significant public support in the process. Advertisement Harvard President Alan Garber in April, rejecting a series of demands from the federal government, pledged not to allow the federal government to influence 'intellectual conditions' at Harvard. 'The University,' he said at the time, 'will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' While Harvard has the funds and legal prowess to withstand cuts for a time, analysts have noted, Columbia did not. Harvard has benefitted from being one of the richest, most recognizable schools in the country — its endowment is $53 billion, compared with Columbia's nearly $15 billion. It has secured some legal wins in court, fueling its backing from the public, especially on the left. Still, Harvard's ability to sustain its fight is growing more costly by the day. Garber warned this month changes from the federal administration — including a new endowment tax Columbia is not subject to — could cost the school up to $1 billion per year. And the Trump administration has not let up on attacks, continuing to hit Harvard with funding freezes, civil rights violations, and threats to its international students. The State Department on Wednesday, for instance, said it launched an investigation into Harvard's participation in a visa program for international community members, a measure the school said was 'another retaliatory step' violating the school's First Amendment rights. Columbia's deal with the federal government has drawn praise from those seeking reforms at the school. The Stand Columbia Society, a group of Columbia alumni and former faculty members that has urged Columbia to make changes, said the agreement 'represents an excellent outcome' that 'delivered much of what the Stand Columbia Society has been advocating for since last summer.' Advertisement 'At the same time,' the group added, 'because funding resumes immediately while implementation will unfold over time, it is essential that Columbia be held to its commitments to deliver concrete, measurable, externally observable, and irreversible progress over the long term.' Anjali Huynh can be reached at

What won't Trump blame on California?
What won't Trump blame on California?

Vox

time11 minutes ago

  • Vox

What won't Trump blame on California?

is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect section, with a focus on animal welfare and the future of meat. President Donald Trump's second term has been very good to large meat companies, which raise and slaughter some 10 billion animals each year. But his administration just gave the industry perhaps its biggest gift yet — in the form of a lawsuit against California. The lawsuit, filed on July 9 by the Department of Justice, seeks to dismantle part of California's Proposition 12, the nation's strongest law for farmed animals, which requires that pork, veal, and eggs sold in California come from animals who were raised with minimum space requirements — essentially cage-free conditions. Passed by ballot measure in 2018, Proposition 12 doesn't quite guarantee humane conditions for farmed animals, but it does at least ban some of the worst factory farming practices: confining egg-laying hens in tiny cages and female breeding pigs in 'gestation crates,' cages so small that they prevent the pregnant pigs from turning around for virtually their entire lives. The Trump administration's lawsuit would nullify the part of the law that covers eggs, which it partially blames for high egg prices not just in California, but across the whole country. Most female breeding pigs in the US are confined in gestation crates for virtually their entire lives. The crates prohibit them from even turning around. Jo-Anne McArthur/We Animals A little more than half of US egg-laying hens are perpetually confined in battery cages, which prevent them from opening their wings. Getty Images/iStockphoto The lawsuit, however, is confusing two entirely separate issues. Cage-free eggs do cost more than eggs produced with cages, though not by much — just a few pennies per egg. Agriculture economists overwhelmingly agree that US egg prices have skyrocketed nationwide over the last few years not because of cage-free egg laws, but because of the bird flu, which has led to the brutal culling of more than 100 million egg-laying hens since 2022. That has caused acute egg shortages and price spikes — especially in fall and winter months when bird flu hits the hardest. 'What you saw was this huge amount of birds out of the system, and then we just have a shortage of eggs,' said Jada Thompson, an associate professor of agricultural economics at the University of Arkansas. She estimates that 90 percent of the rise in national egg prices can be attributed to bird flu. So ending cage-free laws won't do much to bring down egg prices, nor do egg producers want to dismantle those laws, because they've already invested billions of dollars to convert their barns to cage-free. Then what, exactly, is the point of the lawsuit? The Justice Department didn't respond to an interview request for this story. But a number of factors suggest it's likely a smokescreen for other political goals. The Trump administration and Republicans like to beat up on California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who many speculate has presidential ambitions of his own. The administration is also motivated to be seen as doing something — anything — to bring down grocery prices. And according to Chris Green, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the lawsuit is also being used to drum up support for a federal bill, known as the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, which would nullify Proposition 12 and similar laws. The bill has gone by many names in recent years and has so far failed to pass, and has long been a priority for the pork industry. The goal of the lawsuit, Green believes, is 'to attach Trump's name to this [issue], and to try to whip votes' for the Food Security and Farm Protection Act. US Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has also called for striking down Proposition 12. There are lots of reasons why the Trump administration might be eager to help the pork industry. All politicians like being viewed as supportive of farmers, an issue that doesn't always fall neatly across party lines: The Biden administration, too, sided with the pork industry against Prop 12. But the industry overwhelmingly donates to Republican candidates, and Bruce Rastetter — a pork magnate, Republican megadonor, and Iowa political kingmaker — has backed Trump and served as an agricultural adviser during Trump's first term. In other words, although the case is facially about egg prices, it might really have nothing to do with eggs at all. It instead represents the Trump administration's effort to help the pork industry preserve one of the cruelest farming practices ever devised. The decades-long fight over keeping animals in tiny cages Over the last two decades, animal protection groups have successfully campaigned to persuade major food companies, like McDonald's and Chipotle, to eliminate gestation crates for pigs and cages for egg-laying hens from their supply chains. Many states, like California, have banned cages, too. (Disclosure: I worked on a 2016 ballot measure in Massachusetts that is similar to California's law.) Although they initially pushed back against cage-free campaigns, egg producers eventually embraced cage-free production to comply with state laws and meet demand from restaurants and grocery stores. In a recent letter to Agriculture Secretary Rollins, the president of the country's top egg industry trade group wrote that dismantling state laws like Proposition 12 would squander the industry's investments in cage-free production and create an 'additional burden' for egg farmers. Activists with the animal protection group The Humane League protest outside of a Buffalo Wild Wings, asking the company to phase out battery cages from its supply chain. Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Post via Getty Images The pork industry, however, has been an entirely different story. For the last six years, meat trade groups have repeatedly sued against Prop 12. Two years ago, the US Supreme Court voted to uphold California's law. Having failed in the courts, the pork industry, led by the trade group National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), is now hoping that Congress will make it illegal for states to develop animal welfare standards for animal products sold within their borders, as California and Massachusetts have done. The industry has argued that Prop 12 would lead to mass pork shortages in California — which didn't transpire — and skyrocketing prices for pork nationwide. The law did moderately raise prices in California, but it didn't affect national prices. And I would argue that California's modest price hike is a small price to pay to prevent what a reasonable person would only call torture. Temple Grandin, the renowned animal scientist, has likened gestation crates to forcing a human to live their entire life in an airline seat. The pork industry's brewing civil war over cage-free bacon NPPC has also claimed that Prop 12 would put many small pork producers out of business. But smaller producers are less likely to use crates, so the law actually gives them an edge by increasing demand for crate-free pork. According to the nonprofit Americans for Family Farmers, around 500 pig farmers have signed a letter opposing legislative attempts to dismantle cage-free laws, and some smaller and midsized meat companies — like Niman Ranch, True Story Foods, and ButcherBox — have taken the same position. Some bigger farmers want to keep crate-free laws intact, too. One of them is Brent Hershey, a pork industry veteran based in Pennsylvania with 3,000 female breeding pigs, or sows, who give birth to nearly 80,000 piglets a year. Hershey had begun using gestation crates in the 1980s, and for a while, he brushed off criticism of the crates, both from people he took on tours of his farm and animal rights activists working to ban them in various states. 'Over and over again I would take people to see the farm, and I always got a reaction out of ladies. They would see that gestation crate, and they would just be like — right away — 'You mean they're in that all the time? When do you let them out of there?'' he said. 'There was always a negative reaction.' Sows in gestation crates. Jo-Anne McArthur/We Animals Media Over time, he began to question the welfare of pigs confined in gestation crates, and so did his daughter. 'One day, my daughter just looked at me and she said, 'Dad, we are not going to accept that,'' Hershey said. ''We are going to demand that you do it a better way.'' Over time, he started to experiment with crate-free systems. Then a week after the Supreme Court upheld Proposition 12, he tore out his farm's gestation crates. Now, he says, his 3,000 sows have more space than the minimum 24 square feet per pig that California requires. While the extra square footage costs him more money, he's seen a few benefits: Fewer pigs die prematurely, and he's able to charge a small premium for his pork. But he argues that it doesn't make sense to compare the higher cost of crate-free pork to that of conventional pork, as though gestation crates are a reasonable baseline. 'Why are we using it as a measurement?' he said. 'You're measuring yourself against a mistake.' Pennsylvania-based Clemens Food Group, the nation's fifth largest fresh pork processor, which buys pigs from Hershey, wants to keep crate-free laws in place, too. 'Many in the industry, including Clemens, have invested significant capital (and human capital) to meet the regulations set by the people of California and Massachusetts,' a spokesperson told Vox in an email. 'Accordingly, Clemens remains vehemently opposed to any legislative or regulatory action that would overrule' those laws. This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletter Sign up here for Future Perfect's biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more. Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@ Other top pork companies, including Tyson Foods, JBS, and Seaboard Foods are all listed as Prop 12-compliant vendors by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, though none of them responded to an interview request for this story. Yet the National Pork Producers Council is still working to kill Prop 12. Hershey, who served on the board of the organization's Pennsylvania chapter for 20 years, said the trade group is out of touch with many consumers and is fighting for relevance within the industry. NPPC is really 'struggling to justify their existence,' Hershey said. NPPC declined an interview request for this story and directed me to its blog post about the Justice Department's lawsuit. At a US House Agriculture Committee hearing on Prop 12 this week, meat industry representatives were invited to testify, while animal welfare scientists, animal advocates, and small farmers were not. It all amounts to political theater to set the stage for upcoming Farm Bill negotiations, where lawmakers are expected to try to fold in legislation to nullify state cage-free laws. Even if it passes, though, I suspect Hershey will still be glad he tore the gestation crates out of his farm: 'This is not rocket science,' he told me. 'A 10-year-old can look at a gestation crate and tell you that's not okay.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store