With the Corporate Court halfway through its 2011-2012 term, we take this opportunity to look back at the opinions that it has issued so far. The Court’s less tendentious rulings tend to be released before the more closely divided ones, so it is unsurprising that all of these cases were decided 9-0 or 8-1. However, the Corporate Court’s unanimity aside, four of these holdings spell bad news for everyday Americans, while two go against corporate interests, and the implications of a final decision remain to be seen.
First, the bad news.
In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Court held 9-0 that a “ministerial exception” shields religious institutions from liability for discriminatory or retaliatory employment actions. The Court applied a totality of the circumstances test to conclude that the employee in this case – a teacher of primarily secular subjects at a religious school – was a “minister,” and that therefore the ministerial exception applies and her suit is barred. This holding will make it difficult for teachers to speak out against misdeeds within religious institutions for fear of retaliation, and will allow religious institutions to discriminate with impunity.
In Minneci v. Pollard, the Court held 8-1 that employees of a private corporation operating a federal prison may not be held liable under federal law for committing constitutional violations. The plaintiff sued for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, claiming that his Eighth Amendment right not to be cruelly punished had been violated. The Corporate Court held that there is no reason to imply a Bivens remedy because Pollard has an adequate remedy in state tort law. Pollard would clearly have had a Bivens remedy if he were incarcerated in a prison run by the government. Yet because he was placed in a prison run by a private contractor, he is denied that remedy.
In National Meat Association v. Harris, the Corporate Court decided in favor of an industry trade group, holding 9-0 that a California state law designed to protect consumers from contaminated meat and to ensure humane treatment of animals is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act. As a result of the Court’s decision, it will be easier for potentially contaminated meat to get into California grocery stores, and more difficult for all states to protect public health and humane treatment of animals.
In Perry v. Perez, the Supreme Court rejected a district court’s attempts to draw interim electoral maps for the upcoming elections, ordering it to give greater deference to the legislature’s racially gerrymandered maps. With pending lawsuits challenging the maps, the San Antonio court designed interim maps to be used during the 2012 electoral season. The Supreme Court rejected the court-drawn maps for failing to defer adequately to the legislature’s choices, and remanded with the instruction to modify the legislature’s maps only where there are alleged legal problems that have a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court’s ruling will likely have the effect of diluting minority voting rights in the 2012 elections.
Now, the good news.
In Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, the Court held that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act allows a consumer claiming harassment to sue in federal court, reversing the lower courts’ holding that Congress intended to limit jurisdiction to state courts. By siding with Mims, the Supreme Court has provided consumers with the ability to hold companies accountable for unlawful telephone harassment in federal court, where they might receive greater relief than they would in the courts of states with weaker consumer protections.
In a case with narrower application, the Court held in Pacific Operations Offshore v. Valladolid that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act extends workers’ compensation coverage to workers who can show a “substantial nexus” between their injury and their work on the Outer Continental Shelf. As a result, workers in the offshore extractive industries who are injured or killed while working onshore may still receive benefits under the OCSLA if they can show a “substantial nexus” between their injury and operations on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Finally, in the ambiguous category is United States v. Jones, in which the Court addressed the right of individuals to be free from warrantless government tracking of their vehicles’ locations through GPS technology. Although the Court technically ruled against the government, it delivered only a limited victory for privacy rights, holding that the installation and use of a GPS tracker on an automobile constitutes a “search.” Whether or not a warrant is required for such a search remains an open question, and one that will undoubtedly trouble privacy advocates.
The Court returns from its mid-term recess on Tuesday, February 21, when it will hear oral argument in Freeman v. Quicken Loans.
Showing posts with label national meat association v. harris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national meat association v. harris. Show all posts
Friday, February 17, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Corporate Court Rules for Industry in Slaughterhouse Case
Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its decision (.pdf download) in National Meat Association v. Harris, holding that a California state law requiring the humane handling of sick or disabled animals destined for slaughter was preempted by the federal law governing slaughterhouses.
In January 2008, the Humane Society released undercover video depicting sick and disabled cows (“downer” or “non-ambulatory” animals) being beaten, kicked, shocked, and dragged by forklifts and chains on their way to slaughter. In addition to raising concerns about animal welfare, the video inspired grave concerns about the safety of the food supply. Downer animals are much more susceptible to contracting and passing on the E. coli virus, mad cow disease, and salmonella, all of which pose severe health threats to humans. In fact, it later emerged that meat from those same animals had been part of the largest beef product recall in United States history.
The California State Legislature subsequently amended existing California laws governing slaughterhouses, to prohibit purchasing, selling, receiving, processing, or butchering of “nonambulatory” or “downer” pigs, sheep, goats or cattle, and requiring that such animals be immediately and humanely euthanized. The National Meat Association sued to enjoin the law, arguing that it was preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (the “FMIA”).
The FMIA was first enacted in 1906, in the wake of Upton Sinclair’s exposé of the meat industry, The Jungle. FMIA is a comprehensive set of regulations governing the slaughtering process, designed to protect the health of consumers by ensuring that meat for human consumption is wholesome and not adulterated. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled for California, holding that the state law did not conflict with the FMIA’s regulation of slaughterhouse activities, because its effect was to exclude certain types of animals from the slaughtering process all together.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan, reversed the Ninth Circuit, finding the state law to be expressly preempted by the FMIA. The Court held that “[t]he FMIA regulates slaughterhouses’ handling and treatment of nonambulatory pigs from the moment of their delivery through the end of the meat production process,” and California’s law “endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place—except by imposing different requirements.” Accordingly, the Court struck down the state law as preempted, thus undermining California’s efforts to ensure humane and safe handling of animals destined for slaughter.
As a result of the Court’s decision, it will be easier for potentially contaminated meat to get into California grocery stores, and more difficult for all states to protect the public health through the regulation of the food supply.
In January 2008, the Humane Society released undercover video depicting sick and disabled cows (“downer” or “non-ambulatory” animals) being beaten, kicked, shocked, and dragged by forklifts and chains on their way to slaughter. In addition to raising concerns about animal welfare, the video inspired grave concerns about the safety of the food supply. Downer animals are much more susceptible to contracting and passing on the E. coli virus, mad cow disease, and salmonella, all of which pose severe health threats to humans. In fact, it later emerged that meat from those same animals had been part of the largest beef product recall in United States history.
The California State Legislature subsequently amended existing California laws governing slaughterhouses, to prohibit purchasing, selling, receiving, processing, or butchering of “nonambulatory” or “downer” pigs, sheep, goats or cattle, and requiring that such animals be immediately and humanely euthanized. The National Meat Association sued to enjoin the law, arguing that it was preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (the “FMIA”).
The FMIA was first enacted in 1906, in the wake of Upton Sinclair’s exposé of the meat industry, The Jungle. FMIA is a comprehensive set of regulations governing the slaughtering process, designed to protect the health of consumers by ensuring that meat for human consumption is wholesome and not adulterated. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled for California, holding that the state law did not conflict with the FMIA’s regulation of slaughterhouse activities, because its effect was to exclude certain types of animals from the slaughtering process all together.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan, reversed the Ninth Circuit, finding the state law to be expressly preempted by the FMIA. The Court held that “[t]he FMIA regulates slaughterhouses’ handling and treatment of nonambulatory pigs from the moment of their delivery through the end of the meat production process,” and California’s law “endeavors to regulate the same thing, at the same time, in the same place—except by imposing different requirements.” Accordingly, the Court struck down the state law as preempted, thus undermining California’s efforts to ensure humane and safe handling of animals destined for slaughter.
As a result of the Court’s decision, it will be easier for potentially contaminated meat to get into California grocery stores, and more difficult for all states to protect the public health through the regulation of the food supply.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Supreme Court to hear case on federal preemption of state food safety laws
On November 9, the Supreme Court will hear argument in National Meat Association v. Harris. At stake is whether a state may enact laws designed to protect the food supply when federal regulations do not address the specific issue.
In January 2008, the Humane Society released an undercover video depicting sick and disabled cows (“downer” or “non-ambulatory” animals) being beaten, kicked, shocked, and dragged by forklifts and chains on their way to slaughter. In addition to raising concerns about animal welfare, the video inspired grave concerns about the safety of the food supply. Downer animals are much more susceptible to contracting and passing on the E. coli virus, mad cow disease, and salmonella, all of which pose severe health threats to humans. In fact, it later emerged that meat from those same animals had been processed and sold, leading to the largest beef product recall in United States history.
The California state legislature subsequently amended existing California laws governing slaughterhouses, to prohibit purchasing, selling, receiving, processing, or butchering of “nonambulatory” or “downer” pigs, sheep, goats or cattle, and requiring that such animals be immediately and humanely euthanized.
The National Meat Association (the “Association”) sued to enjoin the law, arguing that it was preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (the “FMIA”). The FMIA was enacted to protect the health of consumers by ensuring that meat for human consumption is wholesome and not adulterated. It sets forth inspection and examination requirements for animals that are intended to be slaughtered for human consumption, including downer animals. The Association argues that provisions of the California law that address slaughterhouse “operations,” are “within the scope” of the FMIA, but “in addition to, or different than” FMIA requirements, and therefore are preempted by the FMIA.
California argues that the state law disqualifies downer animals from being slaughtered for the purpose of human food production. Because downer animals effectively never become part of the slaughterhouse “operations” of human food production, the law is not preempted by the FMIA, which only regulates the processing of animals that are destined for human consumption.
The district court granted the Association’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the California law was preempted by the FMIA, both expressly and by implication. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.
If the Supreme Court rules against California, states will be severely constrained in their ability to protect their residents from the dangers of a contaminated food supply.
In January 2008, the Humane Society released an undercover video depicting sick and disabled cows (“downer” or “non-ambulatory” animals) being beaten, kicked, shocked, and dragged by forklifts and chains on their way to slaughter. In addition to raising concerns about animal welfare, the video inspired grave concerns about the safety of the food supply. Downer animals are much more susceptible to contracting and passing on the E. coli virus, mad cow disease, and salmonella, all of which pose severe health threats to humans. In fact, it later emerged that meat from those same animals had been processed and sold, leading to the largest beef product recall in United States history.
The California state legislature subsequently amended existing California laws governing slaughterhouses, to prohibit purchasing, selling, receiving, processing, or butchering of “nonambulatory” or “downer” pigs, sheep, goats or cattle, and requiring that such animals be immediately and humanely euthanized.
The National Meat Association (the “Association”) sued to enjoin the law, arguing that it was preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (the “FMIA”). The FMIA was enacted to protect the health of consumers by ensuring that meat for human consumption is wholesome and not adulterated. It sets forth inspection and examination requirements for animals that are intended to be slaughtered for human consumption, including downer animals. The Association argues that provisions of the California law that address slaughterhouse “operations,” are “within the scope” of the FMIA, but “in addition to, or different than” FMIA requirements, and therefore are preempted by the FMIA.
California argues that the state law disqualifies downer animals from being slaughtered for the purpose of human food production. Because downer animals effectively never become part of the slaughterhouse “operations” of human food production, the law is not preempted by the FMIA, which only regulates the processing of animals that are destined for human consumption.
The district court granted the Association’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the California law was preempted by the FMIA, both expressly and by implication. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.
If the Supreme Court rules against California, states will be severely constrained in their ability to protect their residents from the dangers of a contaminated food supply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)