The confirmation of Brooke Rollins offers something new and exciting at the U.S. Department of Agriculture: she has a strong deregulatory and free market background and an obvious inclination to support real farmers over the Big Ag swamp. She is wrong, however, about California’s Proposition 12 and its implications for states’ rights, farmers and animals.
During her confirmation hearing, Rollins denounced California’s law prohibiting the sale of products derived from the extreme confinement of farm animals – including veal calves, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens.
The law, which was passed via ballot initiative in 2018 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023, is both measured and considered, reflecting the values of California voters and consumers, who are well within their rights to promulgate statutes regulating their own health and safety and reflecting their own ethical standards.
Despite a brief, rhetorical sop to federalism, Rollins made it clear that she would work with Congress to overturn Prop 12, nullifying a state law that the highest court in the land has already said is constitutional.
Big Ag has worked unceasingly over recent years to invalidate such state laws, including a similar statute in Massachusetts. The latest effort was the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, considered for inclusion in the new Farm Bill, which would create a private right of action against states purportedly in violation of interstate commerce. According to a study from Harvard, the bill could nullify more than 1,000 state-level agriculture laws that both support our economies and protect our people.
It’s a cynical and dangerous effort – an affront against state’s rights and an implicit endorsement of the inherent cruelty of our factory farming system.
Make no mistake: opposition to Prop 12 is support for cruelty. It is, frankly, not too much to ask that pitiable farm animals – who live and die only to feed us – be able to turn around once in a while during their sad and agonizing lives. California voters made a considered decision to incentivize more humane sourcing practices. Congress should not attempt to discard the will of the people.
The Supreme Court agrees. In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, Justice Gorsuch said:
“Assuredly, under this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause decisions, no State may use its laws to discriminate purposefully against out-of-state economic interests. But the pork producers do not suggest that California’s law offends this principle. Instead, they invite us to fashion…more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders. We decline that invitation. While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.”
Gorsuch, who would pass any conservative litmus test, is correct. Federal intrusion into state laws would be bad for farmers, bad for animals and bad precedent, allowing corporations to bring suit against any law that impacts their bottom lines. It would also allow federal regulators the power to circumvent the foundational principles of federalism upon which our nation was built.
Senator Joni Ernst, who prompted Rollins’ response, is behind many policies that are good for both Americans and animals (such as the Chinese Laboratory and Watchful Spending Act of 2024). But, like Rollins, she is misguided on this one.
In their brief discussion of the issue, Senator Ernst claimed the law is “fueling market consolidation.” Rollins stated that it is having a negative impact on “hog family farmers.” In fact, quite the opposite is true in both cases.
Pork production in the United States is dominated by Smithfield, a Chinese-owned corporation that is largely behind the effort to overturn our state laws. This is because California’s Prop 12 disproportionately benefits the large industrial meat producers (“factory farms”), who now raise 99% of American farmed animals, compared to small farmers who value traditional husbandry practices. Prop 12 actually fosters competition and benefits innovative family hog farmers.
The National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities have each urged Congress to reject any legislation that would “erode state and local sovereignty by prohibiting the establishment of laws and statutes that aim to protect our nation’s food production and manufacturing.” Likewise, a coalition of 16 House Republicans authored a 2023 letter noting, “If this … provision is incorporated into the Farm Bill, it would provide [Smithfield] with a mechanism to bypass state-level laws and rapidly acquire even more American land and pork industry assets with no restraints at all.”
The EATS Act was not included as a part of the Farm Bill extension passed late last year. But, as Rollins’ testimony suggests, the issue is far from caged.
We have reason to be optimistic about Brooke Rollins, but we cannot countenance a Chinese-backed assault on state law. Let’s hope that our better angels win the day.
Liam Gray is the executive director of Wilberforce Institute and co-founder, with his wife Silvia, of Good Lion Veterans. John Cleveland is a Boston-based public affairs professional and senior fellow at Wilberforce Institute.