title
Motion of the Council of Allegheny County urging the United States Congress to defeat H.R. 4417 and S. 2019, collectively known as the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act.
body
Whereas, as of mid-2023, voters and legislators in over a dozen states have passed laws protecting farmed animals from a variety of practices in the factory farming industry due to their cruelty to the animals involved, including bans on intensive confinement in systems such as gestation crates, veal crates, and battery cages; and
Whereas, in late June of 2023, members of the United States Congress have introduced federal legislation that would largely or completely override these state legislative actions; and
Whereas, this federal legislation, known as the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act (introduced in the House and Senate respectively as H.R. 4417/ S. 2019), could strip states and localities of their right to impose standards or conditions on the production or manufacturing of agricultural products sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce when those standards differ from federal law or the laws of other states; and
Whereas, the EATS Act expressly prohibits “[t]he government of a State or a unit of local government within a State” from imposing “a standard or condition on the preharvest production of any agricultural products sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce if the production occurs in another State; and the standard or condition is in addition to the standards and conditions applicable to the production pursuant to Federal law and the laws of the State and unit of local government in which the production occurs”; and
Whereas, the EATS Act expressly provides that any "person, including a producer, a transporter, a distributer, a consumer, a laborer, a trade association, the Federal Government, a State government, or a unit of local government, that is affected by a regulation of a State or unit of local government that regulates any aspect of 1 or more agricultural products that are sold in interstate commerce, including any aspect of the method of production, or any means or instrumentality through which 1 or more agricultural products are sold in interstate commerce may bring an action in the appropriate court to invalidate that regulation and seek damages for economic loss resulting from that regulation.”; and
Whereas, the EATS Act also would require that a court in which such action is filed issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of any state regulation at issue in the litigation if the plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable economic harm resulting from the regulation(s) at issue; and
Whereas, the EATS Act also establishes a ten year statute of limitations on such court actions, and allows such litigation to be filed in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff is affected by a regulation described in that subsection or in which such plaintiff resides, operates or does business, or in “any other appropriate court otherwise having jurisdiction”; and
Whereas, it is the judgment of Council that the EATS Act would establish poor public policy, to the extent that it would enable a virtually unlimited class of plaintiffs to challenge regulations validly enacted by states having no tangible connection to such plaintiffs; and
Whereas, it is further the judgment of Council that the EATS Act would enable frivolous litigation in such a wide range of jurisdictions and for such an extended time period that the fear of paying the costs of such litigation and the delays inherently involved in doing so would almost inevitably function as a significant disincentive to any jurisdiction to regulate on the subject matter at all; and
Whereas, Council further recognizes that the EATS Act as introduced threatens the ability of local governments to enact and enforce laws and policies that reflect the unique needs, values, diversity, and priorities of their residents and industry; and
Whereas, it is the judgment of Council that the EATS Act also would limit the authority of this County to pass laws and establish regulations that seek to safeguard public health, promote sustainable and equitable purchasing, and prioritize animal welfare in our community; and
Whereas, the EATS Act also threatens existing laws and regulations aimed at protecting food safety, promoting local agriculture, protecting the environment, and advancing humane treatment of animals and would fundamentally undermine the authority of local governments and local attempts to support minority, women, and veteran-owned food businesses that were put in place to help families in communities who are often left behind; and
Whereas, Council is profoundly concerned that the EATS Act strongly resembles the 2013 and 2018 King Amendments which were opposed by over 225 diverse organizations and a bipartisan coalition of federal and state legislators, individual farmers, veterinary professionals, faith leaders, animal protection groups, and legal experts;
The Council of the County of Allegheny therefore hereby moves as follows:
That Allegheny County Council hereby urges the United States Congress to reject any attempt to enact H.R. 4417 or S. 2019.