I recall when California’s Proposition 2 (Farm Animal Confinement Initiative) was placed on the ballot. It was framed as a “let’s ban animal cruelty.” That was in 2008 – I knew it would pass because who wants to say he or she is for animal cruelty? But what it did was, in essence, require private rooms for chickens. I reasoned at the time that California was demanding that every state adopt California’s henhouse standards or be fined because every producer had to comply with California’s more restrictive standards.
Egg-laying hens needed private rooms, according to this initiative. A hen laying your morning omelet had to, by law, have privacy to pump out her eggs. Henrietta’s “house” needed to be big enough so she could lie down, stand up, and spread her wings without touching the sides of her cage.
Section 25990(a)-(b) demanded:
“[A] person shall not tether or confine any covered animal [including egg-laying hens], on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from: (a) Laying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and (b) Turning around freely.”
Henrietta needed to be able to extend her flightless wings and use her bird brain to think about laying “stress-free” eggs.
The mandated provisions went into effect 10 years ago. Egg prices went up, and any out-of-state producer who wanted to sell eggs in the state was required to give their hens the same space to stretch their wings as California chickens.
The Trump administration has decided that California is interfering in interstate commerce via its more restrictive statute and has sued the state for injunctive relief.
The suit begins with:
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law expressly preempts state law where, as here, Congress acting within its constitutional authority expresses an intent to preempt state law through explicit statutory language.
In accordance with its power over interstate commerce and under the Supremacy Clause, Congress expressly pre-empted state and local laws requiring the use of standards of quality or condition for eggs which are “in addition to or different from” those standards under EPIA. 21 U.S.C. § 1052(b).
Newsom’s comms team has jumped on this and done what they always do – frame it as something that it is not, and do it in the voice of a 12-year-old.
Trump’s back to his favorite hobby: blaming California for literally everything.
Next up: @CAGovernor Gavin Newsom caused the fall of Rome and sent the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs! https://t.co/ZvAaUaEcZm
— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) July 10, 2025
Cute, Gavin.
The plea for relief as to count one:
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. 55. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law expressly preempts state law where, as here, Congress acting within its constitutional authority expresses an intent to preempt state law through explicit statutory language.
In accordance with its power over interstate commerce and under the Supremacy Clause, Congress expressly pre-empted state and local laws requiring the use of standards of quality or condition for eggs which are “in addition to or different from” those standards under EPIA. 21 U.S.C. § 1052(b).
As to count two:
Proposition 12 imposes standards of quality and condition on eggs by prohibiting the sale within California of any shell egg or liquid eggs that have certain inherent properties—namely, eggs or liquid eggs that are the product of an egg-laying hen that “was confined in a cruel manner,” as defined by California law. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25990(b)(3), (4).
By prohibiting the sale of non-compliant eggs, Proposition 12 and its implementing regulations likewise violate EPIA and the Supremacy Clause by imposing requirements that are “in addition to” and “different from” federal egg standards under EPIA, and are therefore invalid.
As to count three:
The Secretary of Agriculture under EPIA has promulgated regulations regarding the labeling and packaging of egg products. See 7 C.F.R. §§ 590.410 et seq.; id. § 57.840. 66.
California’s regulations regarding the packaging and labeling of egg products, see 3 Cal. Code Regs. § 1320.4, violate EPIA and the Supremacy Clause by imposing labeling and packaging requirements “in addition to” and “different than” those imposed by EPIA, and are therefore invalid. 21 U.S.C. § 1052(b).
To put it in plain, every day terms, the federal government is arguing here that the Supremacy Clause/the Constitution – not some California bureaucrats who seem to care more about chickens than people – reign supreme when a law affects the various states. We’ll keep you posted on this developing case.
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump’s leadership and bold policies, America’s economy is back on track.
Help us continue to report on the president’s economic successes and combat the lies of the Democrats. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
