The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Can New York City Ban the Sale of Foie Gras?
New York City and New York state are locked in a battle over sale of the fatty liver delicacy.
This past term the Supreme Court upheld a California law barring the sale of animal products that are not produced in conformity with the state's animal welfare laws, even if the products are produced out of state. A majority of the justices rejected the claim that such a law violated the Dormant Commerce Clause because of its extraterritorial effect.
Politico reports on a similar battle in New York, where New York City is seeking to ban the sale of foie gras, largely because of the manner in which it is produced. (Foie gras involves force feeding ducks or geese so as to increase the fat content in their livers.) Although the conflict arises under state law, some of the underlying questions are similar, as it pits producers from elsewhere (in this case, upstate New York) against a local jurisdiction.
New York City's anti-foie-gras ordinance was set to take effect last year, but it was blocked by the state. That order, in turn, was rejected by a state court, and litigation is ongoing.
One of the central issues is whether, under New York law, a city may adopt regulations that unduly interfere with agricultural practices in other parts of the state. Two farms in upstate New York are the nation's dominant foie gras producers, and New York City is responsible for a disproportionate share of their sales.
From the Politico story:
The New York City Council passed, and then-Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law, a bill banning the sale and serving of foie gras in November 2019. It was set to take effect three years later, in November 2022, but the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets ordered the city to foie greddaboudit. The city couldn't implement the ban since it "unreasonably restricts" two foie gras farms' "operations and on-farm practices" under state law, the agency ruled.
The Adams administration sued, and got a taste of victory Aug. 3 when an Albany County judge struck down the state's order blocking the city ban as "arbitrary and capricious." . . .
But the waterfowl war is far from over. La Belle and Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the two duck farms party to the case, filed a notice of appeal Aug. 18.
The state could get another shot at the duck issue too. Albany Judge Richard Platkin's ruling was based on the state's failure to comprehensively review the legislative history of the bill. Instead, he wrote, the agriculture department relied on "two brief quotations drawn from a multi-thousand page record." But he gave the state a second chance by allowing the agency to review the farms' complaints about the law again, and issue a new order based on a more thorough review.
Accoridng to Politico, the conflict is also pitting New York City mayor Eric Adams (who follows a near-vegan diet) against New York Governor Kathy Holchul. It also presents rather common questions about when state law should preempt local ordinances.
For now, foie gras remains on the menu at several New York restaurants. Foie gras cannot be sold commercially in California, however. Under California law, individuals can mail-order foie gras from out of state, but retailers and restaurants may not sell it.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Local story
National implications. Can local ordinances preempt state law (as in various gun control cases).
Um, that's actually not a very interesting story.
Local ordinances can never preempt state law (absent some weird quirk of state law).
Instead, the real battle, which is mainly occurring in red states right now, is that state legislatures are passing laws to keep localities (especially cities) from passing their own local ordinances.
The most notorious example of this is the so-called "Death Star" law passed in Texas recently, which ... I mean, wow.
For more on the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act (a.k.a., "Super Preemption Bill" or the “Death Star Law”), click this link:
https://kvia.com/news/texas/2023/08/16/el-paso-and-other-texas-cities-are-getting-ready-for-abbotts-death-star-law/
The state law shows: Local governments . . . shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within agricultural districts . . . .
So the question is does the agricultural district have to be located WITHIN the local government's jurisdiction?
I think a plain reading would be Yes because otherwise why would they specify "local?"
The state law easily could have said, "Counties/cities (etc.) within NY shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate . . . . "
Couldn't "local" just mean "counties/cities/villages/towns/etc." as opposed to "local to the area regulated"? If they just said governments with no qualification, that would seem to include the state government (blocking state agency restrictions or regulations); the longer enumeration seems both clumsy and might actually miss some cases that they would want to include.
“Local ordinances can never preempt state law (absent some weird quirk of state law).”
“Instead, the real battle, which is mainly occurring in red states right now, is that state legislatures are passing laws to keep localities (especially cities) from passing their own local ordinances.”
Um, do you not realize you said the same thing 2 different ways?
If a state law forbids municipalities from regulating a particular activity, because state law specifically allows/protects it, it shouldn’t matter what the political “color” of the state is.
So yes, local ordinances can never preempt state law…absent a specific authorization to do exactly that (either in statue or its constitution). That wouldn’t be some quirk, it would be an explicit grant of authority.
(I assume we’re especially talking about gun control, that being the subtext of red states.)
It feels more likely an application of Dylan's Rule than preemption doctrine, but I might be misunderstanding the issues.
Not quite right, I think. Can states trump local ordinances is solidly established - absolutely they can because local entities are subordinate components of the state as sovereign. They are not peer-level sovereigns like the states nominally are to the fed.
What the article actually asks, though, is should states trump local ordinances? There is a long-standing premise that local ordinances are more likely to honor freedom than one-size-fits-all rules from on high. This counter-example shows that local entities can be just as narrow-minded and authoritarian as higher entities. And that, unlike is assumed by the foot-voting proponents, local regulations can sometimes have consequences beyond their local jurisdiction.
That depends on the state. Here in PA, for example it is written directly into our constitution that there is no local preemption of state law. This was done to prevent local municipalities to pass stricter, or more onerous gun regulations than those on the state level mainly to prevent a patchwork of differing laws designed to get people traveling through.
That’s not right. I’m not an expert in Pennsylvania law, but that’s not how law, in general, works.
A locality can never, ever, PREEMPT the law of the state. Instead, the law of a locality can be different or more restrictive (especially when there is no state law). But localities cannot preempt state law, since preemption has a specific meaning.
So I went ahead and looked it up, and what you are thinking of is Sec. 6120(a), which …. preempts local laws. Here-
No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
That’s preemption. When a state (or the federal government, but that’s not what we’re talking about here) denies localities the ability to regulate in an area.
It goes the other way around- the state preempts local law.
I don’t see the two issues as being legally similar at all. The issue in this case is whether New York State has delegated to New York City the authority to enact this ban, and/or if there are state laws that contradict it. I think it’s beyond serious question that if New York City has the necessary authority and there’s no preempting state law, it can enact this ban if it wants to.
I see a broad similarity. New York state law prohibits undue burdens on the right to farm (without specifically using the words "undue burden"). Federal courts had to decide whether California's law was an illegal regulation of out of state farming or a legal regulation of local conduct. State courts have to decide whether New York City's law is an illegal regulation of out of city farming or a legal regulation of local conduct.
And this is a purely state by state, i.e. local, question. There’s no reason there should be any single uniform answer to the question of how much power and autonomy local governments should have. Local government is simply a creature of the state. Each state can decide for itself. Whatever authority the state gives to local governments, it can take back. Even if local autonomy is enshrined in a state constitution, that constitution can still be amended if the rest of the state really doesn’t like what the local government is doing.
Law professors should refrain from trying to frame everything as a national question to be given a single uniform nationwide answer. The whole point of federalism is to encourage the reverse.
Agree!
Especially since Prof. Adler started and ended his blog with the - unrelated - CA issues.
In fairness, I would say that Prof. Adler was just pointing to the fact that California also has a ban on foie gras (the subject of the post).
This is a legal blog, and it should be assumed that legal readers would understand the distinction.
That some readers might make incorrect assumptions that the legal issues may be the same is more about the readers than the aside in the post.
The administrative action is a poor fit to the state law, which aims to limit a municipality's regulation of farming within its municipal limits to those regulations necessary for health and safety. New York City's law affects conduct outside of city limits and is based on political fashion instead of nuisance abatement. Does New York have a form of Chevron deference?
Ducks and geese should be fattened the all-American way: stressful but sedentary lives, only slightly relieved by easily accessible junk food.
It would also help if conservatives insisted on calling it “Freedom Liver”.
"Buy a box of crackers for $xx.xx and get y oz. of foie gras for free."
It looks like their goose is cooked.
I see you too a gander at this post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras_controversy
I have to say - because no-one else has done so - that foie gras is delicious.
For a millennium celebration, I made a duck consommé to which I added slivers of home-smoked duck breast and right before serving I added foie gras - in effect, poaching it in the consommé. You have to serve immediately because the fat quickly melts off.
The state law issue here seems very different from the Supreme court case.
The issue here is whether a New York law prohibiting local ordinances that interfere with farming operations is limited in scope to direct effects – actual restrictions on the operation of a farm – or also reaches indirect effects, prohibitions on the sale of agricultural products that tend to diminish the market for products produced in certain ways.
The court decision didn’t decide the question. Instead, it held that the administrative body had made an error of law by basing an expansive interpretation of the law on “legislative history” that consisted of an expansive interpretation of 2 sentences in a committee report. The court said more is needed to establish legislative history, and remanded to the administrative tribunal to decide the question in some other way.
It strikes me as a completely different legal question.
Everyone is for the freedom of people you agree with to do what they want, and against the freedom of people you disagree with to do what they want.
Except they come up with rationalizations to not say that.
You mean that you can have principles, but they are not absolute in all situations? Sounds like life.
In this case, the problem with NYC having this law is that it reflects a control of the rural areas of NY. They don't object to foie gras because it's unhealthy or has some negative effect on NYC itself. They object to it because of how geese are raised for it. And where are they raised? In rural NY State. Sounds like the kind of thing that the state should mediate.
And, apparently, there are enough NYC residents who want it to make it worthwhile to raise.
To some extent that is true. OTOH, when people travel determining the legality of your various possessions on a state by state basis is not much of a hardship. To do so for every city, county, village, and township along the route and likely alternate diversions is orders of magnitude more difficult.
Well, you can make the same argument regarding state v. federal.
And then you can counter that argument by saying that the more local, the more likely you are to have laws that more closely reflect the will of the people in the locality.
This is hardly a new debate. But it just goes down to control. Freedom for me, but not for you, tends to be the only salient factor.
Well, if there were enough NYC residents that wanted to eat it, then they'd do something about it in NYC, because they have the ability to do so.
It's a weird argument, saying that a locality has the ability to control another place because they want to do something. No one is forcing the producers in the rest of NY state to make foie gras, or sell it to only NYC. Markets change all the time.
Viewed more broadly, this is just about valuing the rights of people outside of the locality to sell their wares in a place more highly than the rights of people within that locality to regulate it. Which the state is allowed to do, of course. But it's not some magic "context dependent" way to look at rights. You either favor localism or you don't.
Personally, I don't think foie gras should be banned, but I also think that this is a stupid issue for preemption in New York. This wasn't something that was summoned out of the aether (nor was it because of the Mayor being a vegan, as the story correctly noted, it was actually begun under the prior Mayor's regime).
It's just the usual political infighting, with a state trying to act against a locality based on political interests. Which they can do, but nothing in what NYC is doing actually restricts or regulates what is going on upstate- they just don't want to lose customers.
(That said, the state would easily be in the clear if they just preempted regulation of foie gras, full stop, because this is a really round-about argument.)