But Trump administration & politicians with feet in the pork barrel continue nine years of effort to overturn California Proposition 12 & Massachusetts Question 3
BOSTON, Massachusetts––A sports team losing 20 consecutive decisions usually fires the manager.
The pig production company Triumph Foods, among the most misnamed plaintiffs in recent legal history, along with the National Pork Producers Council, Smithfield Foods, and the Donald Trump administration, represented by agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins, are instead trying to fire the umpires and change the rules of the ballgame.
Minimal space requirements
At issue are the relatively minimal requirements adopted by the 2016 passage of Question 3 in Massachusetts and the 2018 passage of Proposition 12 in California that pork sold in those states must come from pigs raised with enough space to allow them to stand up, turn around, and fully extend their limbs.
California Proposition 12 has already been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 11, 2023, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2024 in response to a new lawsuit filed with a slightly different set of contentions, and again by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2025.
Massachusetts Question 3, essentially the same law approved by voters in a different state, was on October 3, 2025 upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
“20th straight defeat”
Altogether, “This is the 20th straight defeat for the National Pork Producers Council and its surrogates in the federal courts – this one a 3–0 decision against Triumph Foods,” responded Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for A Humane Economy.
“Add its five losses on gestation crates ballot measures, and then our movement’s success in blocking the EATS Act and similar measures in five prior congresses,” Pacelle added.
The EATS Act, short for Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act, and five similar successors, introduced under different titles, sought to repeal Question 3 and Proposition 12 by federally forbidding states from regulating food production standards, instead relegating that authority entirely to the federal government.
The “SOB Act”
Failing in six successive Congressional sessions, the EATS Act is back in the current Congress, renamed the Save Our Bacon Act, swiftly dubbed the “SOB Act” by opponents.
The October 3, 2025 verdict of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Pacelle observed, “also resulted in the elimination of a ‘slaughterhouse exemption,’ a provision [in Massachusetts Question 3] that had allowed pork sold at Massachusetts-based federally inspected facilities to bypass the state’s humane confinement standards.
“Triumph claimed that Question 3 unfairly favored in-state slaughterhouses and violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment across state lines,” Pacelle summarized.
“In response, the state agreed to remove this provision. The removal of this loophole means,” Pacelle explained, “that Question 3 requirements now apply uniformly to all pork sold in Massachusetts.
No such “carve-out” in California
“California’s Proposition 12 does not have any comparable slaughterhouse exception,” Pacelle continued. “It prohibits the sale in California of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with its minimum space requirements, regardless of whether the pork is slaughtered in-state or out-of-state. There is no carve-out for California slaughterhouses as there was in Massachusetts under Question 3.
“Triumph set out to weaken Massachusetts’ humane standards, but the result is quite the opposite,” Pacelle assessed. “By challenging the law, Triumph helped remove a loophole that gave in-state slaughterhouses a free pass.”
Agreed Dan Flynn of Food Safety News, “Triumph’s effort, ironically, was a win for the large percentage of Massachusetts voters who voted ‘Yes’ on Question 3 to bring more humane standards to the pork industry.”
Two footnotes shed light
Two footnotes buried deep within the 47-page First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling may be as illuminating as the ruling itself.
On page 28 footnote, the First Circuit Court wrote, “We note that an amicus brief filed by another major pork producer presents data that is consistent with the record in this case. Tyson Foods, one of the world’s largest meat processing companies, conceded that the materially identical California law discussed in National Pork [the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling] did not harm the company’s operations and Seaboard Foods, which maintains a herd of 7.2 million hogs, reported increased sales after the California law took effect.”
On page 29, the First Circuit Court added, “Massachusetts asserts that the Massachusetts Act is, taken as a whole, more burdensome on Massachusetts farmers than out-of-state farmers. Massachusetts farmers can neither confine pigs in gestation crates nor sell those pigs. Out-of-state farmers can still confine pigs in gestation crates; they just cannot sell those specific, non-compliant pork products within Massachusetts.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
Trump & Bondi
Wrote National Hog Farmer content producer Ann Hess, “This is not the last legal challenge for Triumph Foods as the pork producer recently jumped on board the Trump Administration’s lawsuit against California Proposition 12.
(See Trump & Bondi sue to overturn California laws protecting farmed animals.)
“The farmer-owned firm says its lawsuit includes claims never pursued by any plaintiff before,” Hess reported, “and expands the challenge against Proposition 12 by the U.S. Department of Justice, which filed primarily against Proposition 12’s egg provisions.”
Affirmed Pacelle, “Triumph Foods has now filed a similar lawsuit against California’s Proposition 12 in federal court in California, reprising its failed arguments that state laws protecting farm animals burden interstate commerce and are preempted by federal law.
“Meanwhile, in Congress,” Pacelle added, “Big Pork is pressing its allies to ram through both the deceptively named Save Our Bacon Act and the Food Security & Farm Protection Act. These bills are designed to strip states of their authority to adopt and implement the most important farm animal welfare laws in the nation.”
Conservative opposition
While the Save Our Bacon Act and the Food Security & Farm Protection Act have Trump administration endorsements, they also have substantial conservative opposition, explained Marty Irby, president and chief executive of Competitive Markets Action, in an August 28, 2025 analysis.
“When the 2025 Farm Bill comes up for debate,” Irby began, “lawmakers will face a critical decision: whether to preserve the rights of states and the voices of voters—or to hand even more control of our food supply to foreign corporations and a handful of massive agribusiness conglomerates.
“The deceptively named “Save Our Bacon (SOB) Act,” H.R. 4673,” introduced by Iowa member of the House of Representatives Ashley Hinson, “is the latest version of the EATS Act,” Irby confirmed, “and it deserves to be rejected outright.
“It’s not about bacon. It’s about power.”
“Supporters of this legislation claim it’s about protecting farmers from burdensome regulation,” Irby acknowledged. “But that is simply not the case. What the bill would actually do is nullify more than a thousand state and local laws across the country—laws enacted by state legislatures and voters at the ballot box to safeguard food safety, animal health, consumer protection, and market fairness.
“The SOB Act,” Irby stressed, “is not about bacon. It is about power—and who controls the rules of our food system. And make no mistake: the biggest winner here,” if the SOB Act passes, “would be Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork producer, which is now wholly controlled by China. Smithfield alone owns one out of every six breeding sows in America,” Irby reminded.
“Pork market has already adapted”
“The pork market,” Smithfield and allies excepted, “has already adapted to state standards,” Irby argued. “When California voters passed Proposition 12 in 2018, producers began retrofitting facilities, investing millions of dollars to meet consumer demand.
“Companies like Clemens Food Group, one of the nation’s top pork producers, have spoken out against the bill,” Irby pointed out, “because it would undermine those investments. Niman Ranch—a network of producers owned by Perdue—has shown that demand for humane products creates opportunities for smaller and newer farmers to succeed.
“Consumers want choices”
“Consumers want choices,” Irby said, “and many are willing to pay a premium for products that meet higher standards. That’s how markets are supposed to work. Erasing those standards now would pull the rug out under farmers who played by the rules, while rewarding the largest corporate players who lobbied for federal protection.”
(Daniel Leventhal photo)
“The Harvard Law School report on SOB’s predecessor, the EATS Act, made clear just how far its preemption powers could go,” Irby concluded, “including the risk of undermining kosher and halal food laws. Imagine Washington telling Jewish and Muslim communities that their religious standards for food no longer apply. It’s an absurd overreach—and one that should give every member of Congress pause.”
Please donate to support our work:
https://www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Discover more from Animals 24-7
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So glad to learn of this win for better treatment of the pigs. Hope this signals even greater strides towards the compassionate society we should be.
It should come as no surprise to anyone, even the most gullible, that those completely lacking in even a modicum of compassion for their fellow humans would have none for anyone else.
Clearly, though some of us fight to hold on to what used to be called common decency, we as a society have a LONG way to go.
Sharing with gratitude.