{"id":14181,"date":"2025-10-20T01:17:07","date_gmt":"2025-10-20T06:17:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=14181"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:09:01","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:09:01","slug":"federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently upheld a legal challenge to Massachusetts Question 3, an animal confinement statute similar to California’s Prop 12.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

\"\"

Photo by Veronica White on Unsplash<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2016, Massachusetts voters passed Question 3, the Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals (“the Act”).\u00a0 The Act applied to veal, poultry, and pork, but this case involved only the provisions related to pork production.\u00a0 The Act prohibited the use of gestation crates on pig farms in Massachusetts.\u00a0 Additionally, the law prohibited the sale of most pork products in Massachusetts that are derived from pigs kept in gestation crates regardless of where the production occurred.\u00a0 \u00a0Though passed in 2016, the law did not go into effect until 2023.\u00a0 The stated purpose of the law was to “prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of Massachusetts consumers, increase the risk of foodborne illness, and have negative fiscal impacts on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”<\/p>\n

A group of out-of-state pig farmers and a slaughterhouse that sells pork across the country, including in Massachusetts, filed suit claiming the Act was illegal.\u00a0 They brought ten causes of action: (1) dormant Commerce Clause violation; (2) Privileges and Immunities Clause violation; (3) express preemption under the Federal Meat Inspection Act; (4) conflict preemption under the Federal Meat Inspection Act; (5) preemption under the Packers and Stockyards Act; (6) Full faith and Credit Clause violation; (7) Due Process Clause violation; (8) Import-Export Clause violations; (9) declaratory relief on unconstitutionality; and (10) judicial review of the Massachusetts Regulations under the Act.<\/p>\n

The trial court dismissed all but one claim related to federally inspected facilities that were exempt from the Act.\u00a0 It found this “slaughterhouse exemption” violated the dormant Commerce Clause as it discriminated against out-of-state farmers.\u00a0 Thus, the court severed that portion of the statute and found it unconstitutional.\u00a0 Note a similar challenge<\/a> was recently filed challenging the same provision in California’s Proposition 12.\u00a0 The severance and ruling the slaughterhouse exemption violates the Constitution was not challenged by either party on appeal.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims.<\/p>\n

First Circuit Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Procedural Errors<\/span><\/p>\n

First, the court addressed alleged procedural errors.\u00a0 The court found there was no requirement the trial court state their findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion to dismiss.\u00a0 Second, the court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte.<\/p>\n

Privileges and Immunities Clause<\/span><\/p>\n

Next, the court addressed Plaintiffs’ privilege and immunities clause claim, quickly dismissing this claim because the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not apply to corporations, and the Plaintiffs are companies, LLCs, LLPs, a corporation, and a cooperative.<\/p>\n

Dormant Commerce Clause<\/span><\/p>\n

The Plaintiffs raised two claims under the Dormant Commerce Clause.<\/p>\n

Intentional discrimination<\/em><\/p>\n

Because the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce between states, it is read as prohibiting state and local governments from impeding the flow of goods from one state to another. The appellate court held he trial judge did not err in finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory effect and purpose.<\/p>\n

With regard to purpose the court found certain statements made in legislative hearings that gestation crates are not used in Massachusetts and the Act would protect animals from outside of Massachusetts were insufficient to show a discriminatory purpose for the law.\u00a0 The law’s stated purpose–to prevent animal cruelty and protect health and safety–are not discriminatory.\u00a0 Further, the fact that the Act was passed by voters, not the Legislature, makes the Legislative hearing testimony “not an ideal source of context.”<\/p>\n

With regard to effect, the court found because the law was neutral–applying to both in-state and out-of-state producers alike, it did not have a discriminatory effect.\u00a0 The fact it impacts more (or only) out-of-state procurers is not sufficient to show discrimination. In short, the court said the Act “does not establish different ‘playing fields’ for in and out-of-state interests.”<\/p>\n

Discriminatory effect<\/em><\/p>\n

Next, the Court looked at the\u00a0Pike<\/em> balancing test, which arises when a law is not facially discriminatory, but its practical impacts may also disclose the presence of a discriminatory purpose.\u00a0 Under this test, where a law regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate public interest, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the claimed local benefits. To prove a Pike<\/em> claim, the first step for Plaintiffs is to show the challenged law constitutes a substantial or significant burden on interstate commerce.<\/p>\n

The court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in\u00a0National Pork Producers v. Ross<\/em>, which upheld California’s similar law, Proposition 12. Plaintiffs argued was improper because only three justices agreed with the portion of the opinion holding that the Plaintiffs in National Pork Producers<\/em> failed to prove a substantial burden.\u00a0 The court pointed out that five justices agreed that the\u00a0National Pork<\/em> petitioners’\u00a0Pike\u00a0<\/em>balancing test claim failed, although they could not agree on a single rationale for that holding.\u00a0 Essentially, the court held the Plaintiffs miscounted the Justices who agreed that a substantial burden was alleged in National Pork Producers.<\/em>\u00a0 In conclusion, the court wrote, the majority of the United States Supreme Court held dismissal was proper, the First Circuit could rely on that decision to resolve the case before it.<\/p>\n

Preemption<\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs argued both the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”) and the Packers and Stockyards Act (“PSA”) preempted the Act.<\/p>\n

FMIA<\/em><\/p>\n

The FMIA is a federal statute that addresses the inspection, handling, and slaughter of livestock for human consumption.\u00a0 It applies to processing facilities such as slaughterhouses.\u00a0 The court held the Act does not address how slaughterhouses operate.\u00a0 Plaintiffs relied on a case involving a law that did directly address actions at slaughterhouses, which was distinguishable from the Act.\u00a0 The Act applies to production practices (like gestation crates) that all occur beyond the slaughterhouse gate.\u00a0 That is beyond the bounds of the FMIA, meaning there is no preemption.<\/p>\n

PSA<\/em><\/p>\n

The PSA makes it unlawful for a packer or swine contractor\u00a0 to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage, or impose any disadvantage, to a particular person or locality.\u00a0 The court cited back to its decision that the Act does not discriminate to hold there is no preemption here.\u00a0 There is no unreasonable preference, advantage, or disadvantage because, under the Act, all producers are treated the same.<\/p>\n

Full Faith and Credit Clause<\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs claim the Act is in direct conflict with the Right to Farm statutes in place in the state where they operate, including Missouri, Wyoming, and Indiana. This, they argue, is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The court disagreed, holding the Act did not ban the farming practices that the Plaintiffs claim their states’ Right to Farm Acts protect.\u00a0 The out-of-state farmers are free to continue with any farming practice they chose, and the court relied upon that to reject the Full Faith and Credit claim.<\/p>\n

Due Process Clause<\/span><\/p>\n

The court rejected Plaintiffs claims the phrases “engage in the sale” and “turn around freely” were unconstitutionally vague.\u00a0 Relying on the statutory and regulatory definitions surrounding these provisions, the Court held they were sufficiently descriptive.<\/p>\n

Import-Export Clause<\/span><\/p>\n

Lastly, Plaintiffs argued the Act essentially imposes a tax on out-of-state goods by imposing a particular method of raising pigs.\u00a0 The court rejected this, agreeing with Massachusetts’ argument the Import-Export clause only applies to products imported from foreign countries, not other states.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/span><\/p>\n

This case addresses a number of the legal arguments that were not raised before the United States Supreme Court in\u00a0National Pork Producers Council v. Ross<\/em>.\u00a0 Seeing how a federal appellate court responds to these types of arguments is important to anyone following this type of animal confinement litigation.\u00a0 This now means federal courts have\u00a0 upheld both Prop 12 and Question 3 against constitutional challenges.<\/p>\n

For more background on the Supreme Court decision on Prop 12, and the potential Congressional steps to prohibit these types of laws, check out this blog post<\/a> with my written Congressional testimony on this issue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently upheld a legal challenge to Massachusetts Question 3, an animal confinement statute similar to California’s Prop 12.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here.] Background In 2016, Massachusetts voters passed Question 3, the Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals (“the Act”).\u00a0 The Act applied to veal, poultry, and pork, but this case involved only the provisions related to pork production.\u00a0 The Act prohibited the use of gestation crates on pig farms in Massachusetts.\u00a0 Additionally, the law prohibited the sale of… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2443,"featured_media":14191,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[92],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-animal-confinement-statutes"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nFederal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently upheld a legal challenge to Massachusetts Question 3, an animal confinement statute similar to California’s Prop 12.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here.] Background In 2016, Massachusetts voters passed Question 3, the Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals (“the Act”).\u00a0 The Act applied to veal, poultry, and pork, but this case involved only the provisions related to pork production.\u00a0 The Act prohibited the use of gestation crates on pig farms in Massachusetts.\u00a0 Additionally, the law prohibited the sale of... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-10-20T06:17:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:09:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2025\/10\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\"},\"headline\":\"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-20T06:17:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:09:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1360,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Animal Confinement Statutes\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/\",\"name\":\"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-20T06:17:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:09:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560,\"caption\":\"Photo by Veronica White on Unsplash\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/20\\\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently upheld a legal challenge to Massachusetts Question 3, an animal confinement statute similar to California’s Prop 12.\u00a0 [Read Opinion here.] Background In 2016, Massachusetts voters passed Question 3, the Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals (“the Act”).\u00a0 The Act applied to veal, poultry, and pork, but this case involved only the provisions related to pork production.\u00a0 The Act prohibited the use of gestation crates on pig farms in Massachusetts.\u00a0 Additionally, the law prohibited the sale of... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2025-10-20T06:17:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:09:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2025\/10\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626"},"headline":"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law","datePublished":"2025-10-20T06:17:07+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:09:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/"},"wordCount":1360,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2025\/10\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["Animal Confinement Statutes"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/","name":"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2025\/10\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2025-10-20T06:17:07+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:09:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2025\/10\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2025\/10\/veronica-white-ZuixmDWAHq8-unsplash-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":2560,"caption":"Photo by Veronica White on Unsplash"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2025\/10\/20\/federal-appellate-court-upholds-massachusetts-question-3-animal-confinement-law\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Federal Appellate Court Upholds Massachusetts Question 3 Animal Confinement Law"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626","name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2443"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14181"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14181\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14516,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14181\/revisions\/14516"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14191"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}