Court affirms legality of landmark farm animal protection law modeled on California’s Proposition 12
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy today applaud the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for upholding the dismissal of Triumph Foods’ challenge to Massachusetts’ Question 3, a voter-approved law that prohibits the sale of pork from pigs confined in extreme and inhumane conditions.
The court’s ruling affirms the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s humane standards for pork sold in Massachusetts, rejecting Triumph’s attempt to dismantle these protections under the Commerce Clause. The decision aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 opinion upholding California’s Proposition 12 and reinforces the authority of states to enact moral and public health safeguards for animal agriculture within their borders.
“Once again, the courts have made clear that big meat companies cannot override the moral choices of voters who demand humane treatment of animals,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy. “Massachusetts voters stood up for basic decency, and the First Circuit has now stood with them.”
Adopted by nearly 78 percent of Massachusetts voters in 2016, Question 3 requires that pork, eggs, and veal sold in the state come from animals provided enough space to turn around and extend their limbs. Modeled after California’s Proposition 12, the measure represents one of the strongest animal welfare standards in the nation.
Today’s decision leaves intact the core hog-confinement provisions of Question 3, ensuring that Massachusetts continues to lead the nation in humane farming practices and consumer transparency.
Notably, the case also resulted in the elimination of a “slaughterhouse exemption,” a provision 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. In response, the state agreed to remove this provision. The removal of this loophole means that Question 3’s humane requirements now apply uniformly to all pork sold in Massachusetts, regardless of where it is processed—further strengthening the law’s protections.
“Triumph set out to weaken Massachusetts’ humane standards, but the result is quite the opposite,” said Pacelle. “By challenging the law, Triumph helped remove a loophole that gave in-state slaughterhouses a free pass. The First Circuit’s ruling ensures that Massachusetts voters’ intent—to guarantee all animals raised for food a modicum of decency—will be fully realized.”
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.
“We’re confident that this latest challenge will meet the same fate as Triumph’s Massachusetts lawsuit,” said Pacelle. “The courts have consistently recognized that states can and should uphold humane standards that reflect the moral values of their citizens.”
With today’s ruling, Massachusetts remains among the nation’s leaders in advancing humane and fair farming standards—standing alongside California and other states in forging a more compassionate and competitive future for American agriculture.