Yves here. This issue may not matter to many, but I believe in the humane treatment of farm animals, as I am not enlightened enough to be a Jain. And there are so few winners these days with rules and regulations that get in the way of the capitalists that we should celebrate the victories when they come.
Maybe I missed it, but MAHA seems to be completely off the hook for this issue. I know many health/nutritionists who make an effort to not only eat organic food but only animal products where critics have not been bullied (admittedly, many certifications are questionable and few have the time and energy to visit the farms that produce their food to check their practices). Some of this may come from pity, but it may also come from the belief that animals that are treated better taste better or are somehow healthier. Those Kobe cows get beer, massages, and even good music!
By Brian Bienkowski, managing editor of The New Lady. Prior to that, he was the editor-in-chief of Environmental Health News for nearly ten years and was the founder, producer and host of the Agents of Change on EJ podcast from 2020 to 2024. It was first published in the New Lede
Among the high-profile decisions of the US Supreme Court, the case that the high court refused to take up has animal welfare advocates saying it was the most successful.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied a petition for review in the case of Triumph Foods, LLC v. Campbell, which sought to override the Massachusetts animal welfare law known as Question 3. The petitioners wanted the high court to find that the federal law preempted the laws imposed by Massachusetts. The law — similar to California’s Proposition 12 law — requires that pigs, calves and chickens farmed in confinement or sold in the state be raised with enough room to turn around, lie down and stretch their limbs.
A brief submitted to the Supreme Court by 24 states supporting Triumph Foods said Question 3 “seems only to regulate the sale of pork that occurs in Massachusetts. But its reach is much broader.” State law “denies market access to pig farmers and processors unless their practices comply with Massachusetts regulations,” said the brief, adding that Question 3 would raise the estimated cost of raising a pig between $1,600 and $2,500 up to $3,400.
Triumph Foods cited the court’s June 25 ruling in favor of former pesticide company Monsanto as a precedent that should apply to its case, arguing that state laws cannot override federal law. In the Monsanto case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law governing pesticides is meant to enforce claims related to labeling.
In a counter-argument, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a named defendant in the case, argued that “petitioners have not provided evidence to support the negative predictions within their complaint of ‘higher costs to pork farmers.'”
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion in 2025 that upheld Question 3.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has declined to review yet another challenge by the pork industry to the state’s voter-approved farm animal welfare legislation,” said Rebecca Cary, managing attorney at Humane World for Animals. “The law is now upheld at all levels of state courts, confirming that Question 3 is constitutional and not preempted by federal law.”
Triumph Foods did not return a request for comment on the rejection.
The request comes as challenges to the California and Massachusetts laws are also playing out in federal policy debates, as industry groups have pushed Congress to include the provision — commonly referred to as the “Save Our Bacon Act” — in the upcoming Farm Bill. The House draft included such a provision, while the Senate version, released last week, did not.
Rob Brenneman, president of the National Pork Producers Council, which spearheaded the Save Our Bacon Act and led the legal challenge of Proposition 12 that reached the Supreme Court, said in a statement that “America’s pork producers will continue to advocate for the amendment of Prop. 12 to the legal farm bill as we live through it.”
However, the Save Our Bacon Act faces an uphill battle. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, tweeted his opposition to any form of the Save Our Bacon Act included in the Senate Farm Bill and vowed to “fight to keep it out.”
“Leader Schumer’s opposition to the Save Our Bacon Act is a major blow to Big Pork’s campaign to repeal animal welfare laws and destroy the will of the voters,” it said.
Matthew Dominguez, executive director of the livestock organization Compassion in World Farming. “The Senate Farm Bill’s failure to include this dangerous provision shows that Congress is hearing growing opposition to this usurpation of industry power.”
