AG Curtis Hill leads 13-state effort challenging Massachusetts’ restrictive farming regulations

Complaint filed today with U.S. Supreme Court

Attorney General Curtis Hill announced today he is leading a multi-state lawsuit challenging attempts by Massachusetts to impose agricultural regulations on Indiana and other states.

Joining Indiana in the lawsuit are 12 other states: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The suit, filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court, targets a Massachusetts law preventing the sale in Massachusetts of eggs, pork and veal from livestock not housed according to Massachusetts specifications – regardless of where in the United States the livestock was raised or where the food items were produced. The Massachusetts law resulted from a 2016 referendum.

The case involves a concept known as horizontal federalism.

“Under the U.S. Constitution, states must respect the rights and prerogatives of other states,” Attorney General Hill said. “No state has the right to dictate how other states choose to regulate business operations and manufacturing processes within their own borders.”

Today’s action marks the second case this month involving horizontal federalism in which Indiana has been involved. Last week, Indiana joined a 13-state effort to challenge a California law requiring egg producers in all other states to comply with California’s farming regulations regarding housing of poultry in order to sell eggs in that state.

Both the California and Massachusetts laws, Attorney General Hill said, violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce among and between states.

“No one disputes that individual states have every right to regulate products based on such priorities as protecting consumer health and safety,” Attorney General Hill said. “But that’s a different scenario from when one state sits in judgment of another state’s manufacturing and production processes despite the lack of any discernible impact on product quality or safety. States should not erect barriers to the free flow of products from other states.”

States’ legal complaints against other states must be filed directly in the U.S. Supreme Court, as Congress has provided that “[t]he Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a).

Attached, see legal documents pertaining to the lawsuit.