Triumph Foods Sues California on Prop 12

LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- California's Proposition 12 unlawfully interferes with the federally regulated pork industry and unfairly discriminates against out-of-state pork producers and processors in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Triumph Foods LLC argues in a federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday.

The company based in St. Joseph, Missouri, becomes the first meat processor in the country to challenge Prop 12, but is using a legal approach that was successful in Triumph's lawsuit against a similar law in Massachusetts known as Question 3.

Although forbidden under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, Triumph argues in the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, that California provides an exemption from Prop 12 for federally inspected facilities to sell non-compliant pork in the state.

Prop 12 makes it a criminal offense and civil violation to sell whole pork meat in California unless the pig it comes from is born to a sow that was housed within 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow a sow to turn around without touching an enclosure. Prop 12 applies to any uncooked pork sold in the state, regardless of whether it was raised in California.

"Furthermore, in a blatant attempt to dodge federal preemption claims under the FMIA, California expressly provides an exception for in-state processors to sell non-compliant product directly from their federally inspected facilities -- an exception that out-of-state processors cannot enjoy," Triumph said in the lawsuit.

"California also provided a decade of lead time for its in-state processors to comply with the act. This differential treatment is discriminatory and invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution."

Triumph previously sued Massachusetts on Question 3. That animal-welfare law, like Prop 12, contains "the identical exemption" referenced in the company's new lawsuit. In the Massachusetts case, the court held that the same exemption was unconstitutional and struck down that part of the law.

Triumph asked the California court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Prop 12 and to declare the law unconstitutional.

"Proposition 12's impact on these pork processing establishments is immeasurable, banning the sale of USDA-approved pigs and requiring the processing of USDA-approved pigs separately within the facility under the guise of protecting the 'health and safety' of Californians," Triumph said in its new lawsuit.

"The federal statute governing meat production has specific terms for the pigs and meat deemed unfit for sale and consumption: 'condemned' and 'adulterated.' Proposition 12 creates a new classification of what pigs qualify as 'condemned' and what pork qualifies as 'adulterated' for purposes of sales into California, disrupting operations throughout the entire processing establishment."

There are 1,118 pork processing facilities in the U.S. inspected and approved by USDA, including 34 in California.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in National Meat Association v Harris that Congress already enacted legislation in this space and that state laws usurping the federal government's role and that disrupt the U.S. food supply are unconstitutional.

In Triumph's lawsuit in Massachusetts, the court ruled in July 2024 that the Federal Meat Inspection Act does not preempt that state's Massachusetts Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. The court disagreed with Triumph's argument that the state's sales ban on pork products that don't comply with Question 3 should be severed from the law because it includes pork sold by federal facilities.

The judge in that case pointed out that Triumph already implemented a system to separate compliant and non-compliant pork to be sold in Massachusetts.

FED FACILITIES FACE DUAL REGULATIONS

Triumph argues in the new lawsuit that its facilities are not only subject to federal inspections but also to inspections from California regulators.

"While the regulations (for Prop 12) attempt to carve out FMIA establishments from 'mandatory registration' if the FMIA establishment does not engage in the required annual audit and registration, the alternative is for the FMIA establishment to force its customers to engage in additional resource-intensive steps to maintain an audit trail of the FMIA establishment's facility, including requiring the FMIA establishment's customers to obtain written certifications, maintain records at the customer site of the physical location of the sales, and provide records that can be inspected by the CDFA about the FMIA's facility," the lawsuit said.

"This leaves Triumph -- or any FMIA establishment -- with the option of two punitive choices: to waive its Fourth Amendment rights, get an up-front audit, and allow the CDFA or private certifiers ongoing, continual access for entrance and access inside the FMIA regulated facility for its own, separate and additional inspections; or, to force its customers to engage in additional, burdensome steps, deterring the customers from buying pork from these FMIA facilities."

Triumph's lawsuit said Prop 12 and its regulations require that if an FMIA facility is shipping whole pork meat into California, "all documents of title, shipping invoices, bills of lading and shipping manifests shall upon entrance into the state and during transportation and storage" in California be marked with various statements, including "Not Prop 12 Compliant."

As a result, Triumph said Prop 12 "continuously impacts" the company's operations and facilities on a "daily basis."

PORK PRODUCERS' RESPONSE TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

In response to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division's request for information to help identify state laws that have adverse effects on interstate commerce, the National Pork Producers Council submitted an eight-page letter identifying how both Prop 12 and Question three affect pork producers across the country.

"Compliance requires many farmers to completely revise how they raise and manage their sow herds, necessitating retrofits and reconstruction of barns and imposing costs on the farmers that will not be rewarded by consumers in the other 48 states nor in international export markets," NPPC said in the letter.

"These laws, and the regulations implementing them, stand as shining examples of inexplicable rule-setting, driving up costs for farmers, and ultimately leading to significant food price inflation. What's worse, the arbitrary rules are confusing and often make little sense."

NPPC said those types of laws impose "significant barriers" on farms' ability to access a national market.

"While the U.S. Supreme Court has thus far declined to strike down Proposition 12, characterizing the issue as one better suited for resolution through the political branches," NPPC said, "that decision underscores the urgent need for federal action. It is incumbent upon both the executive and the legislative branch to reassert the principle of a unified national marketplace."

The group said it would like to see more effort to "prevent the proliferation" of "conflicting state mandates" that "threaten to balkanize the domestic market for food" and to disrupt the flow of agricultural goods.

Read more on DTN:

"Question 3 Survives in Massachusetts," https://www.dtnpf.com/….

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com.

Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.