(Beth Clifton collage)
Pun-filled verdict tells Trump administration to sit down from lack of standing
LOS ANGELES––Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a 2020 Donald Trump appointee, on March 19, 2026 rejected a July 2025 Trump administration challenge to the California standards for raising egg-laying hens for lack of standing to bring the case, but will allow the administration a chance to refile.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the most prominent self-asserted animal advocate in the Donald Trump administration, on July 9, 2025 with the backing of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins sued the state of California, California governor Gavin Newsom, and California state attorney general Rob Bonta in Los Angeles federal court, seeking to overturn three California humane laws that protect egg-laying hens from cruel confinement.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Lawsuit attacked California hen space requirements
The Trump administration lawsuit attacked California ballot propositions 2 and 12, approved by voters in 2008 and 2018, respectively, and AB 1437, a 2010 law passed by the California state legislature and signed by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The lawsuit contended that the California legislation imposes “burdensome red tape on the production of eggs and poultry products nationally in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”
In combination, the 2008 and 2018 ballot propositions have required since January 1, 2022 that eggs sold within California must be from hens raised with a minimum of one square foot of usable floor space each in multi-tiered caging, and 1.5 square feet each in single-tiered caging.
The California Animal Care Program Guidance: Egg Producers also requires that hen housing provide “enrichments allowing hens to exhibit natural behaviors, including, at a minimum, scratch areas, perches, nest houses, and dust bathing areas.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
Out-of-state eggs must be produced according to California standards
AB 1437 requires that hen’s eggs imported into California must come from hens raised in compliance with California standards.
(See Trump & Bondi sue to overturn California laws protecting farmed animals.)
“Without requiring the United States to show some redressable injury,” wrote Judge Scarsi in the key passage of his 11-page ruling, “the federal government might initiate a campaign of preemption suits under the aegis of its sovereignty to bring state laws in line with its own political agenda. The potential for abuse of the federal courts for political purposes is manifest.”
While dismissing the Bondi lawsuit, Judge Scarsi gave the Trump administration fourteen days to file an amended complaint, “as long as it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and includes ‘a redline version tracking all changes’ with the filing,’ summarized Sarah Rumpf-Whitten for Fox News Digital.
Wayne Pacelle & friends.
“Encouraging,” says Pacelle
“Our legal team thinks that’s customary, on the opportunity to refile,” responded Wayne Pacelle, president of both Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy, “so not an unusual move. There is language in the opinion that seems to get beyond the standing question, so that is encouraging.”
Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy both “intervened in the case to uphold California’s right to enact these laws,” the two organizations exulted in a joint media release.
“The Department of Justice argued that the state’s laws conflict with the provisions of the federal Egg Products Inspection Act and is therefore preempted,” the Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy summarized.
“The preemption argument is particularly baseless,” said Pacelle, “because Congress has had countless opportunities to establish minimal animal welfare standards for animals on farms, but has been convinced by animal agriculture groups to do not a thing legislatively on this front.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Feds have “no standards whatsoever”
“When it comes to federal animal welfare standards on the farm, there are no standards whatsoever,” Pacelle emphasized.
“The Egg Products Inspection Act does not, in either its plain language or its intent, touch on the humane treatment of chickens,” Pacelle explained, “but rather is focused on consumer safety in a post-production environment.
“Research has shown that providing farm animals, including egg layers, with the minimal space requirements that the California law provides for actually benefits, food safety, and consumer protection.”
Agreed Animal Wellness Action general counsel Scott Edwards, “The legal premise contained in lawsuit is so tenuous and unfounded that it bordered on being frivolous. The Department of Justice’s legal action was clearly brought by the federal government simply to send a message to California for political reasons.
“The judge even recognized in his decision that allowing this case to go forward would open the floodgates for potential for abuse of the federal courts for political purposes.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
What the case has to do with the price of eggs
Observed Fox News reporter Rumpf, “Inflation was a key issue in Trump’s 2024 campaign, and the price of eggs has been a sore point for the administration from the beginning of Trump’s second term. At one point,” in 2025, “as concerns about further inflation for eggs and other groceries spiked amid the new tariffs Trump imposed, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins suggested that Americans who were worried about egg prices resort to raising their own chickens.”
Responded Pacelle, “The egg industry was turned upside down because of a three-year and still-running H5N1 outbreak that resulted in the ‘depopulation’ of 145 million laying hens. Egg prices spiked because of disease, not cage-free standards. Giving hens more space to move lowers stress and reduces crowding and is an antidote to further disease spread.”
Detailed the Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy joint media release, “The claim now being advanced by the Department of Justice built on prior unsuccessful attempts by a coalition of six states in 2014.
(Beth Clifton collage
Ninth Circuit & Supremes already told Trump administration to stow it
“In that case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals firmly rejected the effort to invalidate Proposition 2 on similar grounds, dismissing the case outright given the states’ lack of standing to bring the claims.
“Moreover,” Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy said, “the Department of Justice action closely mirrors a recent preemption claim brought by the pork industry against Massachusetts’ Question 3 and its own anti-cruelty confinement measures under the Federal Meat Inspection Act—a case that was dismissed by the federal district court in Massachusetts.
“While that case is currently pending a decision on appeal, there is every indication that the First Circuit will uphold the lower court’s dismissal.”
(See “Yes, laws do apply to you!” Supreme Court tells horse owners & pig farmers.)
The Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy media release pointed out that, “Propositions 2 and 12 were overwhelmingly approved by California voters and represent a powerful mandate for animal protection,” encouraging passage of similar laws “in multiple other states, including Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington.”
(Beth Clifton photo)
Transformed the egg industry
The passage of such legislation has transformed much of the egg industry, the Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy media release continued.
“In 2010,” the release said, “just 4.4% of laying hens, or 12.2 million birds, lived in cage-free environments across the United States. Now that number is 46%, and the number of laying hens in cage-free environments exceeds 130 million.
Sarah Rumpf-Whitten, in her coverage for Fox News Digital, seemed more taken by the many “egg-cellent” puns made by Judge Mark C. Scarsi in his 11-page decision than by the implications for hens and the egg industry.
Merritt & Beth Clifton with Henry the rooster.
Rumpf-Whitten mentioned Scarsi “characterizing the lawsuit as “[s]eeking to enforce the pecking order between federal and state laws,” referring to “a clutch of intervenors” being granted leave to join the case, establishing that a certain legal standard for motions to dismiss “rules the roost here,” saying that the Trump administration “put all its eggs” in the basket of one specific legal theory of standing, and declaring that “unlike with the chickens and eggs at issue here, there is no question that an analysis of standing must come first.”
Please donate to help our work:
More related posts:
Discover more from Animals 24-7
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
