Seems maybe noteworthy that the decision cites Matthew Scully’s piece in National Review. I wonder if having a respected conservative advocate for animals in a respected conservative outlet made any difference here? (Probably not given that the opinion doesn’t hinge on animal welfare concerns.)
Some of DxE’s cases have been impacted by the courts not even allowing the defendants to describe animal welfare conditions (though not completely curtailed). Perhaps the somewhat more open reception to the facts of the matter in this particular case helped—at the very least, the industry attempted the clearly outrageous argument that confinement was actually good for the pigs.
Could also be something to do with the possible implications for abortion or, ironically, the Biden admin’s support.
Seems maybe noteworthy that the decision cites Matthew Scully’s piece in National Review. I wonder if having a respected conservative advocate for animals in a respected conservative outlet made any difference here? (Probably not given that the opinion doesn’t hinge on animal welfare concerns.)
Some of DxE’s cases have been impacted by the courts not even allowing the defendants to describe animal welfare conditions (though not completely curtailed). Perhaps the somewhat more open reception to the facts of the matter in this particular case helped—at the very least, the industry attempted the clearly outrageous argument that confinement was actually good for the pigs.
Could also be something to do with the possible implications for abortion or, ironically, the Biden admin’s support.