The Farmer's Daughter USA

Hi, I'm Amanda! My family farms corn and soybeans in Southwest Michigan. I'm also a practicing attorney.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Work with Me
    • Speaking
    • Giveaways
    • Social Media Consulting
    • Sponsored and Guest Posts
  • About Me
    • Media
    • Terms of Use

Explaining Why California’s “Egg” Law is Unconstitutional

February 7, 2014

Ah, California – the land of sun, beaches, and unconstitutional animal rights laws.

Remember back in 2008 (I know, reach waaay back), when the state passed a ballot measure about raising chickens? If you don’t:

Californian voters approved a ballot measure in 2008 requiring California egg producers to provide additional room in chicken coops for egg-laying hens. The ballot initiative, according to research done by the University of California at Davis, will increase the costs of egg production in the state by 20 percent, putting out-of-state egg producers at a large competitive advantage. In order to protect California farmers, the state legislature passed a law requiring all eggs sold in California to be from chickens with coops big enough to meet the requirements set by the 2008 initiative. Out-of-state egg producers will either be unable to send eggs to California, or they will have to make large capital investments in order to supply part of the 180 million dozen eggs California annually imports from the rest of the country.

I certainly don’t claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but this type of law is a clear violation. Imposing California’s restrictions on egg producers in other states is a clear violation of the Commerce Clause. How?

The Commerce Clause says that Congress shall have the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Most related litigation has involved what is called the dormant Commerce Clause, which the courts have inferred from the text of the Constitution. Quoting Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, the majority opinion in the Carbone case reads: “The central rationale for the rule against discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose object is local economic protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures the Constitution was designed to prevent.” The courts have allowed for exceptions, when the state has no other way to meet “legitimate local concerns,” and when the effects on interstate commerce are “incidental.” California legislators tried to meet that exception by claiming that Californians had a public health interest in the legislation, but as the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has pointed out while discussing the different methods of raising poultry: “The agency does not know of any valid scientific information that shows that any specific type of chicken has more or less salmonella bacteria than other poultry.” Not only that, but 180 million cartons of eggs stopped at a state border by the egg patrol are hardly incidental to commerce.

To put it simply, it has been the genius of the American system that we have free trade between states. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing in the Lopez decision, added that regulations that treat in-state and out-of-state businesses the same are still unconstitutional if they overly burden interstate commerce: “One element of our dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been the principle that the States may not impose regulations that place an undue burden on interstate commerce, even where those regulations do not discriminate between in-state and out-of-state businesses.”

(Read more here.)

In short, one state may not impose “unduly burdensome” regulations on commerce from another state. If the chicken laws are increasing production costs by 20%, I’d say that is certainly an “unduly burdensome” regulation. California’s only goal in imposing these requirements on out-of-state producers is so they can protect their own farmers and try to level the new, unfair, playing field.

As I mentioned before, the King Amendment, which was cut from the final version of the Farm Bill, would have attempted to stop this unconstitutional type of ballot initiative. It would have prevented one state from imposing its will on the farmers of another state.

Missouri’s Attorney General Chris Koster reportedly plans to file suit in federal court, arguing that California’s laws are unconstitutional. And this is important. Because if California can get away with it, or any other state for that matter, then the voters of just one state can rule them all.

Imagine if a fringe group in California passes a ballot initiative that declares in-state farmers must produce only organic food. Oh, and if you want to sell your produce in California, you have to be certified organic too. As long as California’s consumption is large enough, producers in other states, most notably those closest to California, may find switching to all organic the only economically viable option.
It could happen with any issue — biotechnology, animal rights, or labeling — as long as the right group manages to drive a successful campaign and has the right market forces on their side. Any radical activist group could make this happen. 
The problem is, these initiatives hurt farmers and consumers. Farmers are committed to using the best practices because this is our passion. We don’t need radical groups dictating how we farm. Consumers already feel a squeeze in their pocketbooks and if food prices continue to climb due to regulations, it will only get worse for them (especially if we go all organic!).
If successful, either AG Koster’s lawsuit or the King Amendment can protect agriculture, and other industries, from radical groups and states that want to control production methods well beyond their own borders and in direct violation of the Constitution. 
signature
Share this:
«
»

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: animal agriculture, animal rights, ballot measures, California, eggs, farm bill, legal, regulations

Hi, I'm Amanda. My family farms corn and soybeans in Southwest Michigan. I'm an attorney and I'm passionate about agriculture!

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Subscribe via Email

Archives

Latest on Facebook

The Farmer's Daughter

1 month ago

The Farmer's Daughter

You can't and won't make America healthy by blaming and hindering our family farmers.

... See MoreSee Less

MAHA Report delivers scathing assessment of farm pesticides | AGDAILY

www.agdaily.com

The new MAHA report, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., links pesticides to rising childhood illness, already drawing criticism from farm groups.

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

The Farmer's Daughter

1 month ago

The Farmer's Daughter

Do you a plan for your estate? My latest for AGDAILY focuses on potential changes to the federal estate tax.

... See MoreSee Less

Perspective: A farmer's legacy shouldn't be a tax nightmare for their kin

www.agdaily.com

For farm families, estate taxes aren’t just an abstract policy debate -- they’re a very real threat to generational farms and the livelihoods they support.

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

The Farmer's Daughter

1 month ago

The Farmer's Daughter

If nothing else, this should keep you up at night. Every snake oil salesman is now in charge of HHS.

... See MoreSee Less

How RFK Jr. Is Boosting ‘Food Babe’ and Other MAHA Acolytes

www.wsj.com

The health and human services secretary has elevated lightly regulated wellness companies and allowed advisers to keep investments, after vowing to end conflicts of interest.

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

The Farmer's Daughter

2 months ago

The Farmer's Daughter

These concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

... See MoreSee Less


Photo

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

The Farmer's Daughter

2 months ago

The Farmer's Daughter

Imagine getting to donate a substantial amount of money to a charity of *your* choice and you choose....an animal rights activist group with questionable intentions??

... See MoreSee Less

Why agricultural advocates are lashing out at Celebrity Jeopardy! | AGDAILY

www.agdaily.com

David Friedberg, founder of The Climate Corporation, is drawing ire for his "charity" of choice on Celebrity Jeopardy!: Humane World for Animals.

View on Facebook

·
Share



Share on Facebook



Share on Twitter



Share on Linked In



Share by Email

Latest on Instagram

Amanda Zaluckyj

thefarmersdaughterusa

Amanda | The Farmer's Daughter USA
I'm a proud farmer's daughter & advocate for modern agriculture. U.S. farmers are leaders in sustainability.

Perusing my photos from #Denmark and getting the i Perusing my photos from #Denmark and getting the itch to travel again.
These concepts aren't mutually exclusive. #farms # These concepts aren't mutually exclusive. #farms #farmfamily #environment #soilhealth #nutritiousfood
Stop worrying about labels and just eat them! Stop worrying about labels and just eat them!
Corn is a powerhouse! #corn #farming #growcorn # Corn is a powerhouse! 

#corn #farming #growcorn #USAGrown #usagriculture
Happy St. Patrick's Day! 🍀 Happy St. Patrick's Day! 🍀
The blood moon. 🌙 And proof I woke up at 2:15 a The blood moon. 🌙 And proof I woke up at 2:15 am to see it!
3 years. 💔 #slavaukraini #supporukraine #ukrai 3 years. 💔

#slavaukraini #supporukraine #ukraine #glorytoukraine🇺🇦
Mischa will not suffer a snowman in her yard. ❄️☃️

#dogslife #dogsofinstagram #blacklab #pittiemix #snowday #snowman
We all know RFK, Jr. is well known for vaccine dis We all know RFK, Jr. is well known for vaccine disinformation. But he's also a danger to agriculture, even promising to "weaponize" regulatory agencies against our farm families.

#rfk #farmersdaughter #farmers #conspiracytheories #puremichiganfarm #rfkjr
Load More... Follow on Instagram

Copyright © 2025 · Website Design By Jumping Jax Designs