Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION v. HARRIS

Docket No.: 10-224
Certiorari Granted: 06/27/11
Argued: November 9, 2011
Decided: 01/23/12

Topics:

pre-emption clause, preemption, preliminary injunction

PartyNames: National Meat Association v. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, et al.
Petitioner: National Meat Association
Respondent: Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 599 F.3d 1093

National Meat Association
v.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, et al.
Background:

The Federal Meat Inspection Act ("FMIA"), as amended by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, comprehensively regulates the "premises, facilities, and operations" of slaughterhouses where meat is prepared for human consumption. Since the passage of the Wholesome Meat Act, the FMIA has expressly preempted state regulations "in addition to, or different than" federal regulations. 21 U.S.C. § 678. Thus, for almost half a century, a uniform federal regulatory framework has safeguarded animal and human health and safety. In 2008, California passed a law -the provisions of which were later considered and expressly rejected by federal regulators -requiring federally-inspected slaughterhouses to "immediately euthanize" any non-ambulatory animal on its premises, thereby eliminat-ing important federally-required ante-mortem inspec-tion of possibly diseased animals. The questions presented in this case are:

Question Presented:

1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a "pre-sumption against preemption" requires a "narrow interpretation" of the FMIA's express preemption provision, in conflict with this Court's decision in Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 540 (1977), that the provision must be given "a broad meaning"? 2. Where federal food safety and humane handling regulations specify that animals (here, swine) which are or become nonambulatory on federally-inspected premises are to be separated and held for observation and further disease inspection, did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a state criminal law which re- quires that such animals not be held for observation and disease inspection, but instead be immediately euthanized, was not preempted by the FMIA? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding more gener-ally that a state criminal law which states that no slaughterhouse may buy, sell, receive, process, butch-er, or hold a nonambulatory animal is not a preempt-ed attempt to regulate the "premises, facilities, [or] operations" of federally-regulated slaughterhouses?

Question:

Is a California law requiring slaughterhouses to "immediately euthanize" any nonambulatory animal on its premises preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act?

Note:

the "premises, facilities, and operations" of slaughterhouses where meat is prepared for human consumption. Since the passage of the Wholesome Meat Act, the FMIA has expressly preempted state regulations "in addition to, or different than" federal regulations. 21 U.S.C. § 678. Thus, for almost half a century, a uniform federal regulatory framework has safeguarded animal and human health and safety. In 2008, California passed a law -the provisions of which were later considered and expressly rejected by federal regulators -requiring federally-inspected slaughterhouses to "immediately euthanize" any non-ambulatory animal on its premises, thereby eliminat-ing important federally-required ante-mortem inspec-tion of possibly diseased animals. The questions presented in this case are: 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a "pre-sumption against preemption" requires a "narrow interpretation" of the FMIA's express preemption provision, in conflict with this Court's decision in Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 540 (1977), that the provision must be given "a broad meaning"? 2. Where federal food safety and humane handling regulations specify that animals (here, swine) which are or become nonambulatory on federally-inspected premises are to be separated and held for observation and further disease inspection, did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a state criminal law which re- quires that such animals not be held for observation and disease inspection, but instead be immediately euthanized, was not preempted by the FMIA? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding more gener-ally that a state criminal law which states that no slaughterhouse may buy, sell, receive, process, butch-er, or hold a nonambulatory animal is not a preempt-ed attempt to regulate the "premises, facilities, [or] operations" of federally-regulated slaughterhouses?

NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION v. HARRIS
ORAL ARGUMENT

11/09/11

Listen to Oral Argument in NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION v. HARRIS
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED
Vote: 9-0
Majority: Unanimous
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)