The highest court in the US found in favour of the of the meat processing industry in a legal battle that saw the National Meat Association (NMA) come head-to head with the state of California - represented by Attorney General of the state, Kamala Harris.
Nonambulatory livestock became the subject of debate in 2008 after an undercover video from the Humane Society of the United States showed them being abused in an effort to move them.
This prompted the largest recall of beef in US history and an attempt by Californian authorities to strengthen a pre-existing statute governing the treatment of nonambulatory animals - applying that statute to slaughterhouses regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
The amended Californian law, §599f of the state penal code stated: “No slaughterhouse shall hold a nonambulatory animal without taking immediate action to humanely euthanise the animal.”
Restrictions were also made on the process, butcher or sale of nonambulatory animals and its meat for human consumption.
Pre-emption clause
The Supreme Court petitioner, NMA, sued on the basis that the Californian state law defied a pre-emption clause of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).
The trade body, which represents meatpackers and processors, was initially granted a preliminary injunction on the 2008 law, which was later thrown out by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision overturns that ruling.
“The FMIA expressly pre-empts such a state law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” said Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote and delivered the Supreme Court’s opinion.
The pre-emption clause was added to the FMIA by the US Congress in 1967.
Justice Kagan said: “The clause prevents a State from imposing any additional or different – even if non-conflicting – requirements that fall within the scope of the Act and concern a slaughterhouse’s facilities or operations.”
Additional or different requirements
“And at every turn §599f imposes additional or different requirements on swine slaughterhouses: It compels them to deal with nonambulatory pigs on their premises in ways that the federal Act and regulations do not.”
“The FMIA regulates slaughterhouses’ handling and treatment of nonambulatory pigs from the moment of their delivery through the end of the meat production process.”
“California’s §599f endeavours to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place – except by imposing different requirements,” added the opinion.
NMA CEO Barry Carpenter said following the decision: “We couldn’t be more pleased that the Supreme Court not only found in favour of our very clear and reasonable arguments, but that they did so unanimously.”