BOSTON — Following a legal challenge led by Triumph Foods last fall, a federal judge in Massachusetts found that an exemption in the Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals Act, also known as Question 3, was unconstitutional on Feb. 5.

Judge William Young of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the exemption made to the state law violated the dormant Commerce Clause. Young stated that the provision can be severed while the rest of the law remains.

Question 3 says that companies selling pork in Massachusetts needed to meet the established sow housing space requirements.

The exemption made it possible for pork produced at federally inspected facilities in Massachusetts to be purchased if buyers could take possession of the pork on-site at the plants instead of grocery stores or retail locations. According to the decision, three pork processing plants fell under this exemption in Massachusetts.

Young noted in the ruling that “the only way Triumph would be able to take advantage of the slaughterhouse exception would be to open its own federally inspected facility within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which the Supreme Court has held violates the Commerce Clause. Instead, Triumph and other out-of-state pork processors must face higher costs to sell pork into Massachusetts than those of their counterparts in Massachusetts.”

Young added that Triumph now has 30 days to file a motion of summary judgment on the grounds that the Federal Meat Inspection Act would preempt state law.

The court also denied a motion to dismiss the case brought by the state of Massachusetts.

During 2023, Triumph and other pork industry members filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of a Massachusetts state law regarding sow confinement requirements.

Triumph Foods provided MEAT+POULTRY with a statement on the latest ruling.

“We are thrilled on the progress this ruling has brought for the industry, but it is more meaningful than just pigs and pork chops,” said Matt England, president and chief executive officer of Triumph Foods. “The USDA has consistently ensured that Americans have access to the safest food products in the world, and this process should not be infringed by individual state laws, as food offerings should be driven by consumer choices. We look forward to demonstrating how the remaining portion of the law intrudes into the federal government’s role and are hopeful the disruption to the country’s supply chain soon comes to an end.”

Massachusetts voters first approved Question 3 in 2016.

The US Supreme Court ruled against the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation in May 2023 in its challenge of California’s Proposition 12 animal confinement law, similar to Question 3 in Massachusetts.

In October 2023, the group of 13 attorneys general from around the country filed an amicus brief in the case arguing against Q3.