In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 2, the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act, which banned three forms of animal confinement: “gestation crates” for pregnant pigs, calf for calves and cages for laying hens. But it did not prohibit the sale of food derived from animals confined in this way.
Ten years later, voters took that extra step in Proposition 12. They sought to “prevent cruelty to animals by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of farm animals.” California consumers, and increase the risk of foodborne illnesses and associated negative fiscal impacts on the State of California.
Pork producers have filed a lawsuit, claiming the law imposes changes on out-of-state pork producers, who supply most of the pork consumed in the nation’s largest state.
“California people account for 13% of the nation’s pork consumption, but raise virtually no pigs,” the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation told the Supreme Court in their brief.
“The huge costs of Proposition 12 compliance fall almost exclusively on out-of-state farmers. And because a single pig is turned into cuts that are sold nationwide in response to demand, those costs will be passed on to consumers around the world, in countless transactions that have nothing to do with California.
It is a power grab that violates the Constitution, they said.
The lower courts disagreed. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said the ban does not discriminate against out-of-state farmers and only regulates “in-state conduct, including the sale of products in the State”.
California and the Humane Society noted that other states have similar restrictions and that big pork consumers such as Burger King and McDonald’s are already pushing for changes to confinement practices, which can confine sows to such small pens. that the animal cannot turn around.
The case is National Pork Producers v. Ross.
In the Warhol case, the court will consider a copyright dispute over images created by Warhol in the 1980s.
Warhol’s images are based on a photograph Lynn Goldsmith took of Prince in 1981. She said the work violated her trademark in the photo.
The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled for Goldsmith, saying that Warhol had not substantially changed Goldsmith’s photograph into something completely new.
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the work was a “set of portraits that transformed a pre-existing photograph of the musician Prince into a series of iconic works commenting on fame and consumerism “.
The foundation said the appeals court ruling “casts a cloud of legal uncertainty over an entire genre of visual art”.
The deal is Andy Warhol Foundation vs. Goldsmith.