Group Implores Court to Defend Consumers’ Right to Buy Eggs, Meat

Center for Consumer Freedom Files Amicus Briefs in Multistate Challenges to Agricultural Trade Restrictions.

Bacon Meat And Eggs
The laws were promoted by the vegan advocacy group Humane Society of the United States, which has an expressed agenda to eventually eliminate animal agriculture.

Washington, DC — -( Center for Consumer Freedom has filed amici curiae, or friend of the court, briefs with the Supreme Court of the United States supporting 13 states that are challenging restrictions by California and Massachusetts on what eggs and pork products can be sold in supermarkets.

CCF asserts these restrictions adopted by California and Massachusetts are unconstitutional overreaches that seek to require how farmers in other states care for their animals.

In 2015, California banned the sale of conventionally raised eggs, and in 2016, Massachusetts voters passed a ballot measure that bans the sale of conventionally raised eggs, pork, and veal in the state beginning in 2022. A Cornell University analysis found that the California law caused an 18% increase in egg prices for Californians.

The laws were promoted by the vegan advocacy group Humane Society of the United States, which has an expressed agenda to eventually eliminate animal agriculture.

The cases are Missouri, et al. v. California and Indiana, et al. v. Massachusetts.

The briefs implore the Supreme Court to take up the challenges directly. Unlike other litigation that must work its way through lower courts, the Supreme Court can directly hear lawsuits between states. The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more states.” (Emphasis added.)

The brief also argues that the interstate commerce clause, which clearly makes the federal government the arbiter of commerce between states, is clearly an issue in this case.

“California and Massachusetts shouldn’t get to dictate how farmers in Iowa, North Carolina or any other state care for their animals,” said Will Coggin, managing director of CCF. “The Supreme Court should strike down these unconstitutional laws that drive up costs and restrict choices for consumers and farmers.”

To schedule an interview, contact Garrett Fulce at 202-463-7112 or

  • 44 thoughts on “Group Implores Court to Defend Consumers’ Right to Buy Eggs, Meat

    1. Want to know why so many American farmers are out of business? Things like this lawsuit is why. We put so many restrictions and government regulations on our farmers that they go bankrupt. Then we turn around and import food from overseas that we don’t know a thing about. Think of how many cases of salmonella poisoning we have had coming from produce grown in Mexico. Then think about the pesticides found in baby food that uses produce from foreign markets. The fish grown in China are being fed human waste. If the ones that complain so much are that hard to satisfy there is a solution for them. Let them try growing their own food for a while.

    2. So the Humane Society of the United States wants to cause ALL animals to be exterminated?

      If chickens, pigs, sheep, cows etc are no longer in the food chain there will be no need for them and no economic way to keep them fed. Besides which most of the farmland and food used to feed them will have to be used to grow ‘free range’ vegetables – the either the animals or people will starve to death.

      Then when the carnivores in the population want animal protein we will have to eat …… Soylent Green!

      … Unintended Consequences

      1. You were doing well until the last phrase. It should be “Intended Consequences.”

        Famine is a well-used tool of socialism. From the Russian famines to those in Venezuela today, lack of food is a tried and true way for socialist to “better” society. As Bernie Sanders said in the 1980s, “”You know, it’s funny. Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is when people are lining up for food. That’s a good thing. In other countries, people don’t line up for food. The rich get the food and the poor starve to death.”

      2. That eclectic chef, Jeffrey Dahmer,
        Volunteered to cook in the slammer:
        “I will fix you,” he’d boat,
        “Both kidneys and roast,
        Plus cannibal steak in the summer.”

        (a Durabo original)

    3. (sarc)

      Consumption of plants is speciesist and a crime against the Kingdom Plantae and Gaia, and must be stopped!

    4. Ckicken tasted better when it was Free Range raised instead of in cages. The meat is better when chickens can move around and get fresh air and build better muscles and a healthier body. Think about it. Plus we should not be charged more just because they have to chase chicken into a pen corner and then put them on a truck.

      1. I’m glad you’re here to display a complete lack of animal husbandry, Juggernot. Perhaps each chicken should also have their properly attuned quartz crystal to also channel their chi?

        But, hey, you are welcome to go around opining based on what you learned from Looney Tunes and animal cruelty groups like the gloriously misnamed Humane Society of the US.

        The adult world will be out here trying to minimize the damage your splendid lack of information brings.

      2. I disagree. I eat both types because they are in many ways different animals. Free range is good for some dishes, but it tends to be tough and lean, making it a poor choice for others. It’s also far more expensive, which may not matter to you, but it matters.

        “Organic’ is an affectation of affluent whites, not a broad food option.

      3. I discriminate toward not “free range”, but free yard chicken eggs.
        I get them right from the farm so theyre fresher, and the cooked yolks taste better to me.
        I suspect it’s because of the addition of bugs to their diet

      4. You are right on point 1. You are wrong on point 2. It is actually overall more expensive to raise free range chickens. They still need feed. I’ve done it. Will continue to do it for my family. But, it is more sustainable, ethical and my guess is the meat is more nutritious and would require eating less of it<—total guess on the last one.

        1. @Dee..if your chickens come up out of the field with a craw as big as baseballs and you still feed them, then dont blame anybody but yourself for the cost of feed, winter time is a different story, yes the food intake has to increase to stay warm, in the winter my cost increases but in summer the cost is next to nothing

          1. Free range is a good thought but impossible to do for most. People in cities can’t do it so there would be a small percentage of people that could.

    5. This is a very small example of what it would be like if this commiefornia wave engulfs the whole country. Imagine, Jerry moonbeam Brown telling us every move to make and Bacarra frothing at the mouth to attack us.

    6. I eat salad, on my burger!!..I love animals, fried, boiled, bbq’d, ..I love fish too, hook em and cook em 🙂

    7. WELL..I believe their term was “BAMN” By Any Means Necessary . Sounds like the rest commiefornia need to rise up and clean house in Sacredmento BAMN !

    8. The Humane Soc. spending donor’s money on ridiculous programs and Commiefornia and Assichucis would be sure to get in the mix because it is a feel good policy. Disregard the fact that it will run the prices up and accomplish nothing. Why can’t the Justice department shut the lying, cheating Humane Society down?

      1. It is not the Humane Society that is the problem. It is HSUS, the Humane Society of the United States. Their name is a misnomer of the worst kind as it makes ignorant people give money to an organization that doesn’t care a lick about ANY animal, be it pet or foder. They are radial vegetarians that believe ending the existence of ALL animals, except “natural animal” will promote a vegan world. I wonder how that vegan world is going to get all the nourishment missing in vegan food. Maybe they think they will evolve ruminant features. Anyway, don’t give them any money. They are a self-serving fraud.

    9. @Clive Edwards: How about this, you don’t preach to me about what to eat and what not to eat and I won’t preach to you? I get awfully tired of the Liberal mindset thinking they have the right to force their lifestyle upon the rest of us in everything we do from what we eat to objects we choose to own.

    10. Some animals eat meat. A fact of life. If we claim to be moral creatures lets not add insult to injury by not treating animals with respect. Of course, since humans don’t always treat each other with respect, and murder, burnt offerings and such are touted as good things in the Old Testament, I guess we can’t expect better from people.

      1. non sequitur, and whole from the part.. two argument fails.
        try again.

        We ARE moral creatures, and ever sincd the Great Flood the consumpion of meat has been just fine, per the God who made all the stars, and us.

        Your idea of “treating anmals with respect” is a worship the creation false meme. If a chicken spends its entire life in a wire cage, getting high quality food, room enough to move about, warmth, light, and cleanliness, on wat basis are YOU (or PETA or HSUSA) to determine whether THATis respect or otherwise? Near where I live there are a number of householdsrs who raise chickens for both meat and egg production, and comply with Californias insane laws about chickens. Much as I like “farm fresh pastured eggs”, I refuse to stop by and purchase their products. The chickens are left outside, on the same patch of muddy, poop saturated ground they’ve been on for three years, eating who knows what out of feed bins, not a worm or flea to be found within their beaks’ extent, under conditions I’d never let my DOG endure. Yet they qualify for sale in California. Are these chickens “respected”? Nope. They are every bit as “used” as any in the cage settings I described above.

        Yet California, in direct contravention of our federal Constitution, DEMAND that all eggs sold within their state comply with their HSUSA standards… and that producers that want to sell into California can ONLY produce in conditioins that meet California’s standards. The INTENT of the Interstate Commerce Clause is that states cannot dictate what is done in OTHER states, nor that what is lawful to be produced or sold in another state cannot be sold into their state. California have ignored this for decades, and its about time SOMEONE slapped them down for it. Vehicle smog requrements, equipment requirements, restrictions on what specific models of firearm be sold in that state, banning of interstate shipment of ammunition and other products, sily rqeuirements for bogus labelling for products sold in California.. NONE of which are in compliance with either tht ICC or the 14th Article of Ammendment.

        I REALLY like that this suit has been properly filed.. directly with the SUpreme COurt, the ONLY court in the natioin that can take up any legal matter naming a state as a party to the action. This requirement, Art 3 Sec 2 Par 2 has been ignored… which is WHY we now have all these silly two bit federal district court judges, hacks all of them, pontificating on things like EO’s from a sitting president, and naming states as parties. NONE of those lower courts have a milligram of jurisdiction in any of those cased. They operated outside of their lawfully defined jurisdiction when they took up those cases. Trump SHOULD have quoted that paragraph of the Constitutioin, declared these courts have no jurisdiction, and therefor there opinioins and “judgements’ are nulll voidl of o effect. and carried on enforcing his EO’s. Let th plaintiffs take it to the SCOTUS, like this case, which has been properly filed.

        This interstate restrictuon tyranny MUST STOP. California are NOT the arbiter of how the rest of us live and work and eat. Ed that delusion.

      1. I don’t care about halal slaughter…. they can do it and sell it if they want to. Their buxiness decidioin. But the instant someone passes a law dictating that halal MUST be available, either as an option or the only option, then we have an establishment of religion issue.

        As long as the halal is there alongside “conventioinal” products, and I have a choice let the market drive. I refuse to pay the premium the halal stuff demands, particulalry as that premium goes to support a value set I oppose. Shariah is NOT compatible with our nationsl nor state Constitutions. Ayny way that is promoted at government level is a violation.

        I have never had a probllem with Kosher compliant foods, either, as there has never been any pressure to force my choice. It is availble for they who want it and will pay the premium. That’s fine. But insisting that only halal compliant products be provided, say, as school lunches paid for with MY tax dollars. NO WAY EVER.

        1. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy, once again, of the leftist tree-huggers.
          They will not dare to criticize Islam, even though the Halal slaughter is considered inhumane.

      1. Who are these people that think they can use government as a tool toregulate every facet of human activity? Must we enumerate and describe in infinite, nonmisunderstandable language every aspect of every Civil Right?

    11. What kind of idiots are these nut cases. I am going to eat: egg and meat if I have to raise it myself. I would not live in one of these idiot states. Everyone in those states that has any sense move and let the idiots drown in there on stupidity!!!!

      1. Unfortunately a lot of the idiots that created the current conditions in CA did move because they didn’t like the taxes that resulted from the choices they made. Now they are destroying Oregon the same way.

    12. These uits and others, like rifle and magazine restrictions fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
      Once one of these is won it precedent to overturn state and local rifle and magazine bans.

    13. What the…
      “vegan advocacy group Humane Society of the United States”
      That the same group that bleeds donations from mooks over sad faced puppy commercials and does nothing for any animal that doesn’t line their pockets?

      1. No. The Humane Society and The Humane Society of the United States are two separate and unaffiliated organizations.

        1. Same lunacy, different groups. We should have spanked their behinds when they were children. Hey snowflakes eat what you want and stay out of my kitchen. I earned the money. I spent My money to buy eggs and meat. I will eat it it under the roof I payed for. After all of the non-snowflakes die, enjoy living under the crushing heel of tyranny. Eating dirt and grass because thats all your masters will allow you to have. Brainwashed idiots.

    14. Kalifornia wishes it could control the rest of the nation and will do anything they can to impose their will. They need to be stopped. Since they have run out of water their new plan is drain the great lakes by piping it in. The scope of ignorance and agenda pushing is off the charts.

        1. Well we can still agree to disagree about wildlife conservation. Haha. I read and post on these sites to also learn other people’s viewpoint. Looking are just one side of a subject is for close minded people who refuse to grow.

      1. one that is at home on the range…. in a pot of water, being steamed so I can eat it as part of my supper, being cooked on my own range at home the way I like them.

    Leave a Comment 44 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *