Posted on Mar 22, 2023
Missouri Supreme Court upholds state law prohibiting local regulation of animal operations
271
7
1
3
3
0
The Missouri General Assembly passed legislation in 2019 and 2021 to restrict counties from imposing regulations on industrial livestock operations.
A state law prohibiting counties from imposing regulations on industrial hog facilities does not violate the Missouri Constitution, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The unanimous ruling upholds a Cole County Circuit Court judge’s decision to toss the case before trial. It says county ordinances attempting to set rules for industrial farms are invalid.
At issue is Missouri’s policing of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which are industrial facilities capable of raising thousands of hogs, cows or chickens at a time.
A state law prohibiting counties from imposing regulations on industrial hog facilities does not violate the Missouri Constitution, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The unanimous ruling upholds a Cole County Circuit Court judge’s decision to toss the case before trial. It says county ordinances attempting to set rules for industrial farms are invalid.
At issue is Missouri’s policing of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which are industrial facilities capable of raising thousands of hogs, cows or chickens at a time.
Missouri Supreme Court upholds state law prohibiting local regulation of animal operations
Posted from kcur.org
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 1
3
3
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."The bill wound up being described as "relating to local government."
The Supreme Court rejected that argument too. The question, Wilson wrote, is not whether the title is broad.
"It plainly is," Wilson wrote.
He went on: "Rather, the question is whether this title is so broad that it fails to provide clear notice to legislators or interested citizens as to the bill's contents. It is not."
Wilson wrote the bill is "sufficiently clear" to give a legislator or citizen interested in tracking CAFO legislation notice "that they may want to examine its contents and track its progress."
At the very least, Jeffery argued last year, the 2019 and 2021 state laws shouldn't apply to counties with existing CAFO ordinances. He said it should only prohibit new ones.
The Supreme Court rejected that, saying any ordinance in conflict with the two state laws "is void from and after the effective date of the 2021 amendment, regardless of when the ordinance was adopted."
This story may be updated.
Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence."...
..."The bill wound up being described as "relating to local government."
The Supreme Court rejected that argument too. The question, Wilson wrote, is not whether the title is broad.
"It plainly is," Wilson wrote.
He went on: "Rather, the question is whether this title is so broad that it fails to provide clear notice to legislators or interested citizens as to the bill's contents. It is not."
Wilson wrote the bill is "sufficiently clear" to give a legislator or citizen interested in tracking CAFO legislation notice "that they may want to examine its contents and track its progress."
At the very least, Jeffery argued last year, the 2019 and 2021 state laws shouldn't apply to counties with existing CAFO ordinances. He said it should only prohibit new ones.
The Supreme Court rejected that, saying any ordinance in conflict with the two state laws "is void from and after the effective date of the 2021 amendment, regardless of when the ordinance was adopted."
This story may be updated.
Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence."...
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google