California voters enacted new standards to promote more humane housing of farm animals by approving Proposition 2 eight years ago.
The standards, which took effect Jan. 1, 2015, say that egg-laying hens may not be confined for the majority of any day in a manner than prevents them from lying down, standing up and fully extending their limbs and turning around freely. The California legislature subsequently enacted legislation requiring all eggs sold in the state to comply with Proposition 2.
California Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration then established minimum cage sizes for hens along with salmonella-prevention measures. Gov. Terry Branstad of Iowa — the biggest egg-producing state — joined egg-producing states Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama and Kentucky in seeking to invalidate the so-called Shell Egg Laws in federal court. Attorney General Kamala Harris, elected to the U.S. Senate earlier this month, has thus far successfully defended California in the litigation.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case, finding that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” — the legal right to sue.
The complaint filed by Branstad and the states said they were suing on behalf of egg farmers who’d be harmed by the laws. The court said the farmers could sue on their own and didn’t need governmental representation.
The plaintiffs contended they had standing because of alleged harm from fluctuation in egg prices. But the speculated harm would only accrue to farmers, not consumers, leaving no legal role for Branstad and the states.
The plaintiffs’ standing theories were partly based on alleged discrimination against their states’ residents. But Judge Susan Graber, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, found the argument misplaced:
“The Shell Egg Laws do not distinguish among eggs based on their state of origin. A statute that treats both intrastate and interstate products alike is not discriminatory.”
All of the plaintiff’s theories were based on “parens patriae standing,” in which the government seeks to legally protect those unable to protect themselves. Parens patriae is an exception to the normal requirement that legal standing exists only for plaintiffs alleging direct harm to themselves.
The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add more factual allegations supporting parens patriae standing. Specifically, they wanted “to allege that eggs are an important, affordable source of protein with which the Shell Egg Laws threaten to interfere, and that the threat of increased egg prices affects not just egg farmers, but also ‘grocers, bakers, and restaurant owners,’” as described by Graber.
The court denied the plaintiffs an opportunity to bolster their theories of parens patriae standing with these new allegations. Graber wrote that “our precedents hold that such speculative allegations are insufficient for parens patriae standing.”
The court did give the plaintiffs an opportunity to consider including different allegations supporting a different theory of standing and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case “without prejudice.” So, the case of State of Missouri vs. Kamala Harris may eventually proceed, though the State of California will have a new legal representative after Sen. Harris takes office on Jan. 3.
Originally posted at Medium.