Animal Confinement

This issue tracker focuses on federal and state legislative and regulatory actions as well as litigation addressing animal confinement. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive listing of legislative and regulatory actions; however, the litigation covered is not exhaustive and focuses on selected issues receiving national attention. 

While the Center for Agricultural and Shale Law makes every effort to maintain and update the content furnished in this tracker, no warranty or other guarantee is made regarding the timeliness and accuracy of any information provided. If you spot incorrect or missing information, feel free to contact us. 

3.8.24 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the USDA Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on civil judicial enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). This MOU establishes a framework for notification, consultation, and coordination among APHIS, OGC, and ENRD to ensure the efficient and effective implementation and enforcement of the AWA.  

12.28.23 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published in the Federal Register minor clarifications to the Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards (OLPS) Rule published in November 2023. These clarifications do not alter the core requirements of the rule, but improve its readability and understanding. 

11.16.23 – Effective November 20, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will incorporate a “noncarcass merit premium” for hogs raised in accordance with animal confinement legislation (ACL), such as California’s Proposition 12, into its Weekly Direct Swine Non-Carcass Merit Premiums report, part of its Swine Direct Reports. Under 7 U.S.C. § 1635i, “non carcass merit premium” refers to “an increase in the base price of the swine offered by an individual packer or packing plant, based on any factor other than the characteristics of the carcass …” As of now, the USDA Livestock Mandatory Reporting Program (LMR) includes non-carcass merit premiums paid for ACL-compliant hogs in the “other” category, along with other non-carcass characteristics like “animal welfare, antibiotic free, diet/feed, genetics, meat quality, process verified program, and sow housing.” The November 27, 2023 report indicated average premiums of $3.19 per 100 pounds for “other” and $5.07 per 100 pounds for ACL-compliant swine. 

11.2.23 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published in the Federal Register a final rule, titled “National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards.” This rule updates the USDA organic livestock and poultry production standards, including improvements in handling and transport, slaughter, poultry living conditions, and livestock care practices. More specifically, the rule establishes standards for livestock living conditions, considering the specific needs and natural behaviors of various animal species and consumer expectations regarding organic livestock care. For poultry, the regulations stipulate specific indoor and outdoor space requirements. The rule is set to become effective on January 2, 2024. 

8.21.23 – A coalition of Congress members sent a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson and ranking member David Scott, articulating their opposition to the incorporation of H.R. 4417, commonly known as the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, or any analogous legislation in the 2023 Farm Bill. The letter highlights that across fifteen (15) states, there have been efforts to establish regulations pertaining to public health, food safety, and humane standards for products derived from egg-laying chickens, veal calves, and mother pigs, including California’s Proposition 12, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Congress members expressed their concern that the passage of the EATS Act “would drastically broaden the scope of federal preemption and impede the ability of voters and elected officials to enact laws that address local concerns,” and thus “urge[d] [the committee] to reject inclusion of th[e] provision or anything like it in the Farm Bill.”  

6.21.23 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) granted $7.5 million in funding for initiatives falling within the Welfare of Agriculture Animals Program. This financial support will enable the evaluation of existing production methods, the mitigation of stress from transportation and temperature variations on animals, investigation into the relationship between the microbiome and animal welfare, the application of genomics, research into animal behavior, and the exploration of noninvasive methodologies for evaluating animal well-being.  

12.15.22 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) published a report titled “State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries: An Overview.” The report analyzes the current attributes, implementation, and legal challenges of animal welfare and confinement policies in the fourteen (14) states that have such laws. 

11.29.23 – Campbell Soup Company’s shareholders rejected a shareholder proposal demanding a detailed report outlining the company’s cage-free egg conversion plans by a margin of 14 to 1. The proposal was defeated with 16,455,000 votes in favor; 233,898,313 votes against; 2,068,490 votes abstaining, and 20,962,197 broker non-votes. The company’s Board of Directors, in its 2023 Proxy Statement filed with the SEC, had recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal, citing the unpredictable nature of cage-free egg sourcing and the potential influence of external factors such as avian influenza outbreaks and supply chain disruptions. They argued that requiring Campbell Soup to “disclose periodic, interim, prospective targets against previously announced multi-year goals–in addition to annual progress updates against those same goals–would be burdensome, unnecessary, and duplicative, and the various numbers could generate confusion among our stakeholders.” Campbell Soup intends to provide a specific update on its progress towards achieving its cage-free egg commitment in its March 2024 Corporate Responsibility Report. 

4.11.19 – The International Dairy Federation (IDF) released an updated Guide to Good Animal Welfare in Dairy Production 2.0. According to IDF, the updated guide is intended to help dairy farmers and milk producers understand and implement good animal welfare practices globally. To achieve its goals, the guide provides five action areas that should be considered when developing and implementing quality management systems for dairy animal welfare. The five action areas are 1) stockmanship; 2) feed and water; 3) physical environment; 4) husbandry practices, and 5) health management. IDF published a prior guide on animal welfare in 2008.  

12.1.22 – The National Chicken Council (NCC) updated its Broiler Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist. These guidelines have been adopted by farmers as a baseline to ensure that all chickens are raised properly and humanely. More information on the guidelines and the NCC can be found here.  

National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. Ross, et al.

National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. Ross, et al.
USDC S.D. California, No. 3:19-cv-2324

4.27.20 – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that California’s Proposition 12 does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and dismissed a suit brought by the National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation seeking to invalidate Proposition 12. Fifteen states and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed amicus briefs in support of the challenge. Proposition 12 was passed in November 2018 and amended California’s Health and Safety Code by prohibiting, effective December 21, 2021, the sale of pork in California from hogs born of a sow that cannot lie down, stand up, fully extend its limbs, or turn around without touching the side of its stall or another animal and raised in a pen at least 24 square feet. The court found that Proposition 12’s requirement does not target solely interstate commerce because they regulate in-state and out-of-state conduct equally and that Proposition 12 does not place a substantial burden on interstate commerce simply because it precludes a less expensive production process. Another substantially similar Commerce Clause challenge to California’s Proposition 12 remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in North American Meat Institute, et al. v. Ross, et al., No. 2:19-cv-8569.  

6.17.20 – The National Pork Producers Council (NPCC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) filed notice of an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the district court’s holding that California’s Proposition 12 does not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  

National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. Ross, et al. 
Ninth Circuit, No. 20-55631 

7.28.21 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision holding that California’s Proposition 12 in-state production animal confinement standards and in-state sales restriction for products not produced in accordance with them, do not violate the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause. In upholding Proposition 12’s constitutionality, the court affirmed the earlier decision upholding Proposition 12 issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 27, 2020. If the U.S. Supreme Court grants a permission requesting an appeal, disposition of that appeal would not be possible before Proposition 12’s effective date of January 1, 2022. No stay has been requested in the case thus far.  

National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. Ross, et al. 
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 21-468 

9.27.21 – The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to have California’s Proposition 12 declared unconstitutional as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Proposition 12 in pertinent part prohibits the in-state sale of pork products from animals raised in a manner not compliant with California’s in-state swine confinement standards. The law was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in July 2021. NPPC and AFBF’s announcement states that the Court is being asked to determine whether a state law that “requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry” and thus imposes “dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state” is a dormant Commerce Clause violation, i.e., it unreasonably burdens interstate commerce. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal, its decision on the constitutionality of the law will likely be rendered in mid-2022, six months or more after Proposition 12’s effective date of January 1, 2022. If the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case, that is likely to be well before January 1, 2022.  

3.28.22 – The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition and will now proceed to hear and decide the case, potentially before the close of 2022. No dates for oral argument are yet set. The impact of the Court’s ultimate decision may potentially be wide-ranging with effects far beyond state-mandated animal handling and confinement standards in animal protection agricultural and could permanently alter U.S. Constitutional Law interpreting the legal limits of state and local government actions which have the effect of regulating the conduct of any industry engaged in interstate commerce.  

6.10.22 – The NPPC and AFBF filed their brief.  

6.14.22 – The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments on October 11, 2022.  

6.17.22 – The U.S. Solicitor General filed an amicus brief setting forth the position of the United States government that the State of California’s Proposition 12 animal confinement law made applicable to out-of-state production of pork products sold in California violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court set oral argument in the case for October 11, 2022.  

8.8.22 – The State Respondents filed their brief.  

10.11.22 – The U.S. Supreme Court heard both parties’ arguments.  

5.11.23 – The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion, affirming the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and dismissing all claims that California’s Proposition 12 swine production confinement standards made applicable to all pork products sold in California, regardless of state-origin, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  

North American Meat Institute, et al. v. Becerra, et al.

North American Meat Institute, et al. v. Becerra, et al. 
USDC C.D. California, No. 2:19-cv-8569 

10.4.19 – Plaintiff North American Meat Institute (NAMI) filed a complaint against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 12 adopted on November 6, 2018. Additionally, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of Proposition 12.  

11.22.19 – The U.S. District Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.  

11.27.19 – Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety.  

12.3.19 – Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding the court’s decision to deny their motion for preliminary injunction.  

2.24.20 – The U.S. District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.  

North American Meat Institute, et al. v. Becerra, et al. 
Ninth Circuit, No. 19-56408 

10.15.20 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum disposition affirming the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s November 22, 2019, denial of a preliminary injunction against California’s Proposition 12. The underlying complaint remains pending before the district court. Proposition 12 requires that all pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens housed in California and all products sold in California which are derived from pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens, no matter where produced, be produced according to enumerated minimum confinement standards. According to the memorandum, the law: (a) is not discriminatory on its face because it treats out-of-state and in-state producers the same and does not substantially burden interstate commerce; (b) does not impact an industry that is inherently national or requires a uniform system of regulation, and; (c) is not a price control or price affirmation statute.  

North American Meat Institute v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, et al. 
U.S. Supreme Court, No. 20-1215 

2.26.21 – The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting that it hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision that California’s Proposition 12 does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause in establishing animal confinement standards for all pork and veal products sold in the state. A response is due from the California Attorney General by April 2, 2021.  

6.28.21 – The U.S. Supreme Court denied North American Meat Institute’s (NAMI) petition for certiorari from the refusal to grant an injunction against California’s Proposition 12 on the basis that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Proposition 12 establishes in-state animal confinement standards for egg-laying hens, veal calves, and breeding sows and prohibits the in-state sale of noncompliant products (including out-of-state products) derived from these animals. A separate case seeking a final judgment striking down Proposition 12 on identical legal grounds filed by the National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. Ross, et al., No. 20-55631.  

King, et al. v. Hanson, et al.
USDC Oregon, No. 3:24-cv-152

1.23.24 – Four small dairy farmers in Oregon filed a complaint challenging the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s (ODA) interpretation of the state’s definition of “confined animal feeding operation” (CAFO). According to the complaint, this definition unfairly includes the plaintiffs’ small milking operations, which are typically exempt from state food safety and fluid milk licensing requirements (Or. Admin. R. 603-074-010(3)). In a 2023 white paper, the ODA wrote that “all animals are technically confined during the milking process, whether in pens, lots, or buildings.” As such, the complaint stated that “the mere act of milking an animal—in a sheltered location or on a prepared surface—constitutes confinement for purposes of triggering” CAFO permitting requirements. The plaintiffs, who stated that they milk only 2 to 9 animals per day, argued that the state’s CAFO permit requirements were “impermissibly overinclusive” and violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.

4.8.24 – The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) filed a motion to dismiss the case, asserting that the case is moot due to the policy’s withdrawal in March 2024. Additionally, the ODA argued that even if considered, the policy represented a reasonable exercise of the state’s authority to protect water quality from manure runoff.

Triumph Foods, LLC, et al. V. Campbell
USDC Massachusetts, No. 1:23-cv-11671 

7.25.23 – A group of farming and pork companies from the Midwest filed a complaint against the state of Massachusetts, alleging that Question 3, the Massachusetts Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment, also known as chapter 333, An Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals, unfairly treats producers from outside the state; thus, infringing upon the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The law restricts the sale of pork within the state to those that fail to adhere to the state’s confinement standards. Additionally, plaintiffs argued that Question 3 is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act. Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction asking the court to immediately stay enforcement of Question 3.  

7.31.23 – The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief. 

8.7.23 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction along with a supporting memorandum, arguing that they had strong merits and would prevail on all their claims, and that harm would result to the nation’s pork production sector without injunctive relief.  

9.28.23 – The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, along with a supporting memorandum, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the dormant Commerce Clause. The plaintiffs alleged that the Massachusetts Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act imposed unreasonably expensive and unwelcome alterations to their operations. The defendants, however, argued that these cost-related grievances do not constitute a valid legal claim and that the complaint should be dismissed. Additionally, the defendants countered the plaintiffs’ Commerce Clause argument by citing Supreme Court precedent in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross that the Act does not place an unconstitutional burden on intrastate commerce. They further dismissed the plaintiffs’ Privileges and Immunities Clause claim, arguing that it does not apply to corporations. They also rejected the plaintiffs’ preemption claim under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), explaining that the FMIA applies exclusively to slaughterhouses while the Massachusetts Act only applies to farms. 

10.2.23 – The U.S. District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ commerce clause claim but allowed their remaining claims to proceed, including preemption claims under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act, and constitutional claims under the Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Import-Export, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses. 

10.10.23 – Thirteen states—including Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming—filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs, arguing that Massachusetts’s law is an “overly burdensome regulatory scheme” that will harm interstate pork markets and impede out-of-state pork farmers’ market access.  

10.28.23 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment along with a supporting memorandum, arguing that the Massachusetts Act violates the Dormant Clause of the U.S. Constitution and discriminates against out-of-state businesses. The Act prohibits the cruel confinement of breeding pigs within Massachusetts; however, the plaintiffs argued that the Act takes a further step by banning the sale of pork derived from animals raised in such confinement, regardless of where the farm is located and, as a result, effectively targeting out-of-state farms that do use this practice. The plaintiffs further argued that discrimination also occurs through exemptions available only to Massachusetts pork processors, harming out-of-state businesses economically.

11.15.23 – The U.S. District Court issued a summary judgment against all plaintiffs apart from Triumph Foods, LLC, which applies to all claims raised under the Pike theory of discrimination. 

12.18.23 – The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint for lack of Article III jurisdiction along with a supporting memorandum, asserting that the plaintiff, Triumph Foods, lacked standing to bring the case due to the absence of an “injury in fact.” They argued that despite Massachusetts’ substantial purchases of Triumph’s products, the sales were not under Triumph’s control but rather managed by an unrelated entity, Seaboard. Seaboard and Triumph had an agreement allowing Seaboard to sell Triumph’s products, and the defendants maintained that Triumph failed to demonstrate that Seaboard was unable to fulfill this agreement, regardless of the Massachusetts Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act. The defendants concluded by stating that Triumph had not established a concrete injury caused by the Act.

2.5.24 – The U.S. District Court entered a memorandum and order, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the slaughterhouse exemption within the state’s Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act (“Question 3”) is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The court found the exemption discriminatory because it allows in-state entities to purchase noncompliant pork within state-based federally inspected facilities, disadvantaging out-of-state processors. The court ruled that the slaughterhouse exemption is severable from the rest of the Act. Furthermore, the court vacated in part a previous order granting summary judgment against all plaintiffs, allowing the court to consider whether the Act, without the now-severed slaughterhouse exemption, is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).  

3.6.24 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that even though the slaughterhouse exemption—also referred to as the FMIA establishment exception—has been severed from the Act, the Act remains preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The plaintiffs contended that the Act’s sales ban, regardless of the FMIA establishment exception, continues to interfere with federal regulations and is therefore preempted by FMIA. The plaintiffs further argued that the Act extends beyond the mere regulation of sales and impacts the entirety of FMIA establishment operations, creating a conflict with FMIA regulations. The plaintiffs requested the court to either strike down the Act’s sales ban or, in the alternative, enjoin its application to FMIA establishments.

4.5.24 – The defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment urging the court to reinstate its dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim of preemption. Previously, the court had allowed the plaintiffs to re-argue whether the Massachusetts Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, without the slaughterhouse exemption, is preempted by the FMIA. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs’ preemption argument failed to answer this directly. They argued that the plaintiffs merely repeated the same preemption arguments previously dismissed by the court and did not address how the removal of the slaughterhouse exemption alters their argument.

Arizona

11.7.06 – Arizona voters approved Proposition 204, an initiative to prevent cruel and inhumane confinement of animals (Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910.07 to 13-2910.08). Proposition 204 prohibits the confinement of sows or calves raised for veal and ensures these animals have enough space to lie down, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely. Anyone who violates this proposition will be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

4.22.22 – The Arizona Department of Agriculture published the Cage-Free Egg Rule in the Arizona Administrative Register (R3-2-901-909), implementing a phased transition to cage-free egg production within the state: (1) from October 1, 2022, to December 31, 2024: all egg-laying hens in the state, and all eggs sold within the state, must come from hens raised according to the United Egg Producer (UEP) Animal Husbandry Guidelines and housed in cages with at least one square foot of usable floor space per hen; (2) From January 1, 2025, forward, all laying hens must be housed in cage-free environments, and all eggs sold must come from cage-free hens.

The Arizona Department of Agriculture announced it will postpone enforcement of the recently adopted standards outlined in Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R3-2-907 until January 1, 2023. The secondary implementation date for the cage-free requirement, effective January 1, 2025, remains unchanged.

California

11.4.08 – California voters passed Proposition 2, which prohibits, by January 1, 2015, the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens in a way that restricts their movement, preventing them from turning around, lying down, standing up, and extending their limbs completely. Anyone in violation of this law may face a fine of a maximum of $1,000 and/or imprisonment in a county jail for up to six (6) months.  

6.22.18 – The California Secretary of State, Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. announced the eligibility of a farm animal confinement initiative to be added to the November 6, 2018, ballot. The initiative, Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act, aimed to phase out “extreme methods” of farm animal confinement to decrease the risk of foodborne illness. The initiative establishes minimum space requirements for veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens. To qualify for the ballot, the initiative acquired over 402,468 valid signatures.  

11.6.18 – California voters passed Proposition 12 (Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990 to 25994) which establishes minimum space requirements farmers must provide for confined egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and calves raised for veal. Additionally, under Proposition 12, no California business is permitted to sell eggs, pork, or veal that comes from animals confined in ways not meeting the new requirements. Previously, in 2008, California passed Proposition 2 which mandated that confined egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and calves raised for veal must be able to “turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.” Proposition 2 became effective on January 1, 2015. Proposition 12 now places confinement restrictions based on a minimum number of square feet and on sales.  

12.23.21 – According to a guidance issued from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), in-stock egg and pork products already in inventory or commerce on December 31, 2021, that do not meet Proposition 12 guidelines are considered compliant with the law. Additionally, CDFA stated that its implementation priorities are “focused on helping stakeholders meet the deadlines outlined in Proposition 12.” 

5.31.23 – The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) issued new guidelines titled “Questions and Answers Regarding Pork Sales after the 2023 Supreme Court Decision” in response to the validation of California’s Proposition 12 by the Supreme Court. Under Proposition 12 regulations, all pork producers are required to register with the CDFA. The guidelines further specify that the Proposition 12 confinement standards will come into effect on July 1, 2023. The guidelines state that, for the remainder of 2023, CDFA will focus on distributor registration, accreditation of third-party certifying agents, and certifications for producers and distributors, rather than addressing noncompliant pork already in commerce. Starting from January 1, 2024, Proposition 12 regulations will mandate third-party certifications for both pork distributors and producers during the registration process. Until then, CDFA will accept self-certifications of compliance along with a duly completed Application for Distributor Registration

1.1.24 – California’s Proposition 12, which establishes the state’s Animal Care Program and requires third-party certification for producers (HSC §§ 25990-25994 and 3 CCR §§ 1320-1327.3) became fully effective. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) clarified that, as of January 1, 2024, (1) “[p]roducers are required to have a valid Certificate of Compliance,” (2) “[c]overed products sold are required to be from producers with valid Certificates of Compliance,” and (3) “[d]istributors are required to have a valid Certificate of Compliance for new registrations and for the purposes of registration renewal.”  

Colorado

5.14.08 – Colorado Governor August Ritter Jr. signed into law SB08-201, providing livestock confinement standards. The law requires that calves raised for veal and gestating sows must be housed in a way that enables them to move freely, stand up, lie down, and turn around without any contact with the walls of their enclosure. This requirement applies to calves raised for veal until they are slaughtered and gestating sows twelve (12) days before delivery. Gestating sows may be housed in a farrowing unit during that time. The handlers must comply with these requirements by January 1, 2012, for calves raised for veal, and January 1, 2018, for gestating sows.  

7.1.20 – Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law HB20-1343, known as “Egg-Laying Hen Confinement Standards.” The new law requires that, by January 1, 2023, chickens and other commercially producing egg-laying fowl enclosures must be no smaller than “one square foot of usable floor space per egg-laying hen” and, by January 1, 2025, must be in a statutorily defined “cage-free housing system.” The legislation provides several exceptions, including farms with fewer than 3,000 egg-laying hens. All eggs sold in-state must be from compliant sources regardless of where produced.  

1.1.23 – The Colorado statute formerly known as HB20-1343, titled “Concerning Confinement Standards for Egg-laying Hens Whose Eggs are Sold” became effective. The act, originally passed in 2020, outlines confinement standards for farm owners of chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, or guinea fowl hens, collectively (hens). These standards require that by January 1, 2025, farmers will confine hens in cage-free housing systems with at least one square foot of usable floor space per hen or 1.5 square feet of usable floor space per hen if the hens do not have free access to vertical space. Several purposes, such as medical research and veterinary procedures, are exempt from these standards. More information can be found here.  

Florida

11.5.02 – Florida voters adopted Amendment 10—also known as the Florida Animal Cruelty Amendment—prohibiting the use of gestation crates for pregnant sows (Fl. Const. Art. 10 § 21). The Amendment reads, “[it] shall be unlawful for any person to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or to tether a pig during pregnancy, on a farm in such a way that she is prevented from turning around freely.”

The state of Florida adopted Fla. Stat. § 828.13, which states that anyone who confines an animal without providing enough food and water, keeps animals in enclosures without proper exercise and ventilation, or abandons sick or injured animals to die is guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor. The penalties include a fine of up to §5,000, imprisonment, or both.  

Under Fla. Stat. § 828.14, the state of Florida requires that no individual, corporation, or their representatives may keep livestock confined for over 28 hours without providing them with necessary food, water, and care, or subject them to overcrowding to the extent of causing harm or death. Violation of this regulation constitutes a second-degree misdemeanor.  

Illinois

2.15.24 – Effective February 15, 2024, the state of Illinois defines an animal confinement area to include “open lots, housed lots, feedlots, confinement houses, stall barns, free stall barns, milkrooms, milking centers, cowyards, barnyards, medication pens, walkers, animal walkways, and stables” (Ill. Admin. Code. Tit. 35 § 501.223).

Kentucky

3.7.14 – The state of Kentucky sets forth standards for the care and treatment of livestock and poultry on farms in Kentucky under 302 KAR 21:020. It covers standards for feeding and watering, space requirements, health care protocols, handling and transport procedures, exhibition preparation, biosecurity measures, and exemptions.

3.7.14 – The state of Kentucky added to the general livestock and poultry care standards set forth in 302 KAR 21:020 and introduced additional specific standards and authorized practices for beef cattle, bison, and veal under 302 KAR 21:030. This regulation requires that cows must have enough space to separate from other animals during calving, and housing systems must provide access to food and water. Additionally, pens for these animals are allowed if they facilitate air circulation, lighting, social interaction among calves, and enable calves to stand, rest, groom, and eat without restrictions. As of December 31, 2017, veal calves must be raised in group pens.

Maine

5.12.09 – Maine Governor John Baldacci signed into law LD 1021, An Act to Prohibit Cruel Confinement of Calves Raised for Veal and Sows during Gestation (codified as a civil offense in Maine Revised Statutes, Title 7 § 4020 and as a criminal offense in Title 17 § 1039). The law prohibits the tethering or confinement of calves raised for veal or gestating sows in a way that restricts their ability to lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely. The law became effective on January 1, 2011.

Massachusetts

11.8.16 – Massachusetts voters passed Question 3, the Massachusetts Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment—also known as Chapter 333, an Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals. The law makes it unlawful to sell within the state of Massachusetts a shell egg, whole veal meat and whole pork meat that come from an animal “confined in a cruel manner.” The law describes the terms “confined in a cruel manner” as “confined so as to prevent a covered animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal’s limbs, or turning around freely.” The law was set to become effective on January 1, 2022.  The regulations enforcing the Massachusetts Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals are outlined in 940 CMR 36.00. 

12.22.21 – Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law S.2603, which amends Acts of 2016 Chapter 333, titled “An Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals.” Section 6 of the bill revises the existing statutes—which became effective January 1, 2022, and established cage-free egg and animal confinement standards—to delay the implementation of the confinement standards for pork products until August 15, 2022. The bill also adds a definition of “cage-free housing system” and establishes that an egg-laying hen is “confined in a cruel manner” if the bird is kept in a structure other than a cage-free system with less than one square foot of floor space in a multi-tiered housing system, or less than one and a half square foot of space in a single-level housing system. The bill further aligns Massachusetts law with California’s Proposition 12, which also became effective January 1, 2022.  

Michigan

10.12.09 – Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed into law HB 5127, adding section 46 to the Michigan’s Animal Industry Act which, among other things, prohibits egg-laying hens from farms with greater than 3,000 egg-laying hens from being confined for the majority of any day without the ability to “fully spreading both wings without touching other hens on the side of an enclosure and having access to at least one square foot of usable space per hen.” The law was to become effective in 2020.  

12.21.18 – Michigan Governor Rick Snyder vetoed SB 660, which would have attached animal confinement restrictions to the sale of shell eggs. Under the proposed law, a business would have been prohibited from knowingly selling shell eggs produced from hens not housed in compliance with Michigan’s Animal Industry Act (AIA). Accordingly, AIA prohibits the confinement of veal calves, gestating sow, and egg-laying hens “in a way that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely.” 

11.21.19 – Michigan Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist, acting in place of Governor Gretchen Whitmer, signed into law HB 0174—now known as Act 132—extending from 2020 to 2025 the effective date of the Michigan’s so-called “cage-free egg” law. All eggs produced, sold, or imported into Michigan must be produced under compliant conditions by the effective date. Michigan ranks in the top ten nationally in shell egg production.  

Nebraska

7.15.10 – The state of Nebraska adopted the Livestock Animal Welfare Act, which prohibits and criminalizes the cruel mistreatment and neglect of livestock animals (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-901 – 913). The Act defines cruel mistreatment as “knowingly and intentionally kill or cause physical harm to a livestock animal in a manner that is not consistent with animal welfare practices.” Cruel neglect is defined as “fail[ing] to provide a livestock animal in one’s care, whether as owner or custodian, with feed, water, or other care as is reasonably necessary for the livestock animal’s health.”  

The state of Nebraska defines an animal confinement area to include “open lots, housed lots, feedlot, confinement houses, stall barns, free stall barns, milkrooms, milking centers, cowyards, barnyards, medication pens, walkers, animal walkways, and stables” (130 Neb. Admin. Code, 1 § 42).  

Nevada

6.4.21 – Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signed into law AB399, which prohibits after July 1, 2022, the sale and production of eggs from birds confined in an enclosure with “less than 1 square foot of usable floor space per egg-laying hen.” After January 1, 2024, the legislation requires egg-laying hens to be kept in a “cage-free housing system.” The law does not apply to producers with 3,000 or fewer egg-laying hens. Nevada joins eight other states with similar “cage-free egg” laws and regulations.  

New Jersey

7.26.23 – The New Jersey legislature approved A1970, also known as P.L. 2023, c.130, An Act concerning the confinement of certain calves and pigs, and supplementing Title 4 of the Revised Statutes. The law introduces both criminal charges and civil penalties for the inhumane confinement of breeding pigs and veal calves within enclosures that restrict their ability to lie down, stand up, fully extend their legs, or turn around freely. 

North Dakota

The state of North Carolina adopted N.C. Gen. Stat. § 68-22, which states that any person who impounds livestock and fails to provide sufficient good and wholesome food and water during their confinement will be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.  

Ohio

9.29.11 – Effective September 29, 2011, the state of Ohio established minimum standards for veal calves, including housing space, lighting requirements, pen conditions, air circulation, and restrictions on tethering (Ohio Admin. Code, Rule 901: 12-5-03). More specifically, the state requires clean and safe housing and sufficient lighting for calf inspection. In the absence of natural light, artificial light must be provided for a designated period of time each day and must allow calves to observe each other. Both individual and group pens must be adequately ventilated, and their design should allow for controlled social interaction between calves. Additionally, the space must provide enough space for calves to “stand without impediment, provide for normal resting postures, groom, eat, lie down, and rest.” Furthermore, tethering is only authorized to prevent “naval and cross sucking” and facilitate “restraint for examinations, treatments, and transit.” In these instances, tethers must allow for natural calf movement.

Oregon

6.14.07 – Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed into law SB 694, implementing a six-year phase-out of the use of gestation crates for breeding pigs (ORS 600.150) and prohibiting the “restrictive confinement of a pregnant pig if the person confines a pregnant pig for more than 12 hours during any 24-hour period in a manner that prevents the pregnant pig from … [l]ying down and fully extending its limbs; or [t]urning around freely.”

8.9.19 – Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law SB 1019, requiring that, by 2024, commercial operations with egg-laying hen flocks greater than 3,000 must house the flocks in “cage-free housing systems.” Under the legislation, the egg-laying hens must have the ability to roam and have access to “scratch areas, perches, nest boxes and dust bathing areas.” Additionally, the legislation states that individuals are not permitted to buy, sell, transport in intrastate commerce, or receive eggs that are not produced in compliance with Oregon’s egg-laying hen housing requirements.  

Rhode Island

6.19.12 – Rhode Island Governor signed into law SB 2191, which prohibits the confinement of animals “in a manner that prevents such animal from turning around freely, lying down, standing up, or fully extending the animal’s limbs.” 

7.10.18 – Rhode Island adopted HB 7456 without the governor’s signature. The law modified the definition of what constitutes unlawful confinement of any covered animal and became effective on July 1, 2026.  

South Carolina

S.C. Code Ann. § 47-1-90 outlines rules regarding the transportation of animals by railroad companies. The state of South Carolina prohibits overloading of cars and limits the confinement of animals to 36 consecutive hours without a break, unless prevented by uncontrollable circumstances such as severe weather. However, if animals have proper access to food, water, and space for rest within the cars, this unloading requirement does not apply. The total confinement time includes any time spent without rest on connecting roads.  

Utah

3.17.21 – Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed into law SB 147, titled “Confinement of Egg-Laying Hens.” The new law mandates that, beginning January 1, 2025, all egg-laying hens must be kept in either a cage-free housing system or in an enclosure with 1.0-1.5 square feet of usable floor space, as required by the United Egg Producers’ Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg-Laying Flocks: Guidelines for Cage-Free Housing, 2017 Edition. The law exempts farms with less than 3,000 egg-laying hens and provides exceptions during veterinary care, transportation, fair exhibition, slaughters, and temporary animal husbandry of egg-laying hens, and for hens used in medical research. The legislation authorizes the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) to impose a $100 fine for each written notice of violation and to issue a temporary restraining order or permanent injunction against producers who fail to resolve violations. Additionally, the law requires that UDAF compile a report for the November 2023 Business and Labor Interim Committee meeting on producer compliance and “the retail demand for and conditions related to the sale of cage-free eggs.”

Washington

5.7.19 – Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed into law HB 2049 mandating that, by the end of 2023, eggs produced and/or sold in the state must come from cage-free hens. According to the legislation, by January 1, 2024, egg-laying hens may only be housed in “cage-free housing systems.” Such systems must permit an egg-laying hen the ability to roam unrestricted (except for external walls) and be provided “enrichments” such as scratching areas, perches, nesting boxes, and dust bathing areas. Additionally, eggs will not be permitted to be bought, sold, or transported in Washington unless the eggs are produced in compliance with the state’s cage-free standards.  

Arizona

Krueger v. Arizona Department of Agriculture 
Arizona Superior Court for the County of Maricopa, No. CV2023-018151 

11.16.23 – An Arizona restaurant owner filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Arizona Department of Agriculture’s (AZDA) April 2022 Final Rule, which phases in cage-free housing requirements for in-state egg sales. The restaurant owner argued that the AZDA lacked the authority to enact the rule and that the rule is overly broad and grants the agency power “so expansive that it functions as little more than an enabling act permitting AZDA to make whatever laws it wishes regarding poultry husbandry and the sale of eggs in Arizona.” The plaintiff further argued that the rule has caused him direct financial harm by increasing egg prices and restricting his ability to purchase and sell eggs. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction preventing AZDA from enforcing the rule.  

California 

California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. Ross  
Sacramento County Superior Court, No. 34-2021-80003765 

6.16.23 – The Sacramento County Superior Court issued an order granting the request of all parties to delay the enforcement of California’s Proposition 12 swine confinement standards until December 31, 2023. This order follows more than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s Proposition 12 on May 11, 2023, in National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. Ross, et al., No. 21-468.  

District of Columbia

The Humane Society of the U.S. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc. 
D.C. Superior Court, Civil Division, No. 2021 CA 003777 B 

10.18.21 – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging that, under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, Smithfield Foods misrepresents and deceptively advertises its pork products because the company continues to use gestation crates. According to the complaint and HSUS’s corresponding press release, in 2007 Smithfield announced that “it was beginning the process of phasing out individual gestation stalls” and “would be ‘replacing them with pens—or group housing—over the next 10 years.’” HSUS, however, claimed that Smithfield “leads consumers to believe that the company has eliminated its use of gestation crates, which, upon information and belief, appears to be false.” HSUS seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Smithfield.  

7.13.22 – Defendant Smithfield Foods, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs failed to state a “plausible claim for relief.”  

10.24.22 – The Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued an order denying Smithfield Foods, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, which seeks injunctive and other relief against Smithfield under the D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act for false marketing, including denying the use of gestation crates. The court found that HSUS had alleged sufficient facts to support its false and misleading advertising claims, including citing Smithfield’s 2020 Sustainability Report—which states that Smithfield “maintains group housing for all pregnant sows on company-owned farms globally” and that its “open housing systems allow for social interaction between animals and room for exercise”—which the court found “arguably inconsistent with [Smithfield’s] admitted continual use of individual crates during portions of the breeding process.” The case will now proceed to discovery and pretrial proceedings.