Last week, Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes Reason, where I write a weekly food-law column) partnered with the Cato Institute to file an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the foie gras producers and sellers who are challenging California’s foie gras ban. I was honored to be asked to write and submit (as a member of the Supreme Court bar) the brief. In March, the plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to take up their appeal after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last fall reversed a U.S. District Court ruling that had struck down the ban.
The possible implications of a state animal-rights law that interferes with interstate and foreign commerce in animal products are already reverberating. Last year, in separate lawsuits, each brought by more than a dozen states, California and Massachusetts were sued over respective animal-rights laws in those states that similarly discriminate against interstate and foreign commerce.
Together, the California and Massachusetts laws target eggs, pork, and beef sales. If it seems as if a couple states can do widespread and lasting damage to livestock farmers, retailers, restaurateurs, consumers, and food freedom across the country, then that’s also the reality. That’s also what makes this foie gras case so important.
"This brief supports Reason's commitment to 'Free Minds and Free Markets,'" says Manny Klausner, a former editor of Reason, a Reason Foundation co-founder and board member, and attorney, who joined me in filing the brief. "And it's particularly satisfying for Reason to file a Supreme Court brief defending liberty that quotes Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's opposition to bans on various types of foods and liquors as 'lunacy' and 'despotic'—and also cites Escoffier, Julia Child, and Thomas Keller!"
I am proud to have had the opportunity to work with Reason Foundation and The Cato Institute and to lend my voice to the chorus urging the Supreme Court to take up this important case.