LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- A federal appeals court upheld a Massachusetts animal welfare law known as Question 3, ruling the law does not discriminate against out-of-state farmers.

The state's Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act bans the sale of pork meat that comes from farms not meeting sow housing requirements no matter where it is produced.

In February 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled an exemption from the law for federally licensed meat-processing plants in the state was unconstitutional. That court, however, denied a motion by Triumph Foods based in St. Joseph, Missouri, and a group of farmers to sever the sales ban from the law -- which would have effectively made the law applicable to only farmers in Massachusetts.

This past week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected all plaintiff claims on appeal.

Most notably, the First Circuit rejected claims the law discriminates against out-of-state farmers, although in practice the law does not apply to farmers in Massachusetts because none of them use gestation crates.

The ruling effectively gives states broad authority to regulate their own markets as it relates to animal welfare, so long as states do not explicitly discriminate against out-of-state businesses.

"The mere fact that a statute's requirements fall solely on interstate companies does not lead to a conclusion that the state is discriminating against interstate commerce," the three-judge panel said in its ruling.

Still, the court said the Massachusetts law applies equally to everyone. The panel cited the case Exxon Corp. v Governor of Maryland in explaining that the law doesn't discriminate just because it affects more out-of-state businesses -- meaning the law doesn't give Massachusetts farmers a "competitive advantage" and simply sets standards for what can be sold in the state.

The First Circuit distinguished the Massachusetts law from a case involving California winemakers, where a Massachusetts law was struck down because it was deliberately designed to benefit small in-state wineries over large out-of-state wineries.

The panel also pointed to the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in National Pork Producers Council v Ross, where the court considered a law that is virtually identical in California's Proposition 12. The Supreme Court upheld the California law.

The First Circuit also denied arguments made by Triumph Foods and farmers that the Massachusetts law is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

"The act here only bans the sale of noncompliant pork meat; it does not regulate how a slaughterhouse operates," the First Circuit said this week.

The court also rejected eight other related challenges to Massachusetts law.

Triumph and the farmers have argued the sales ban should be severed because it includes pork sold by federal facilities. Pork producers represented in the case reside in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Missouri, Wyoming and Indiana.

U.S. District Judge William G. Young said in his 2024 ruling there was no conflict between the federal and state laws.

In addition, he said Triumph Foods already implemented a system that allows it to separate compliant and non-compliant pork to be sold in Massachusetts. The company processed over 11 million pounds of pork meat sold in the state in 2022.

The farms and pork processors that took legal action also include Christensen Farms Midwest LLC, The Hanor Company of Wisconsin LLC, New Fashion Pork LLC, Eichelberger Farms Inc., and Allied Producers' Cooperative. Thirteen states also joined the lawsuit.

Thirteen states signed on to an amicus brief in support of the companies, including Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

While the law facially appears to regulate just the sales of pork in Massachusetts, the 13 states have said it has a much broader effect on farms and companies across the country.

Last month, Triumph Foods became the first meat processor in the country to challenge Proposition 12 in California.

In that case, Triumph argues Prop 12 unlawfully interferes with the federally regulated pork industry and discriminates against farmers and processors outside of California.

Read more on DTN:

"Question 3 Survives in Massachusetts," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

"Triumph Foods Sues California on Prop 12," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.