Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Triumph Foods, LLC, et al. v. Andrea J. Campbell, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 24-1759 · judgment October 3, 2025
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
This Court has recently evaluated several petitions challenging individual state laws attempting to regulate methods of pig farming and pork processing nationwide. This is the first opportunity for the Court to review these insidious laws on behalf of a federally regulated processor and invalidate them as preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”). That’s critical, because National Meat Association v. Harris, 565 U.S. 452 (2012), unanimously confirmed that the FMIA’s express preemption clause “sweeps widely,” preventing “a State from imposing any additional or different—even if non-conflicting— requirements that fall within the scope of the [FMIA] and concern a slaughterhouse’s facilities or operations.” Yet that’s precisely what Massachusetts’s law does by compelling processing facilities to change and conform their operations throughout the production process. Preemption aside, on behalf of both a processor and individual farmers, these individual State laws remain unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause and a variety of other constitutional doctrines. This Court’s fractured decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023) continues to foment nationwide confusion worthy of correction. The questions presented are:
-
Whether the Act imposes additional or different—even if non-conflicting—requirements on pork producers, and is thus preempted by the FMIA under principles of express or implied preemption?
-
Whether the Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause or the other constitutional doctrines sufficiently pleaded in the Complaint?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Michael Thomas Raupp
Husch Blackwell LLP
For respondent
Maryanne Reynolds Martin
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General
Proceedings
- Jun 30 2026Petition DENIED. Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Jun 29 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2026.
- Jun 25 2026Supplemental brief of petitioners Triumph Foods, LLC, et al. filed.
- Jun 09 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2026.
- Jun 08 2026Reply of petitioners Triumph Foods, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jun 01 2026Brief of respondents Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. in opposition filed.
- Jun 01 2026Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioners.
- Apr 14 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including June 1, 2026.
- Apr 13 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 23, 2026 to June 22, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Apr 13 2026Response to motion to extend the time to file a response from petitioner filed.
- Mar 24 2026Response Requested. (Due April 23, 2026)
- Mar 20 2026Amici brief of Iowa, et al. not accepted for filing. (To be corrected - March 26, 2026)
- Mar 20 2026Brief amici curiae of Iowa, et al. filed. (Corrected)
- Mar 17 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/2/2026.
- Mar 10 2026Waiver of right of respondents Andrea Joy Campbell, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Massachusetts, and Ashley Randle, in her official capacity as Massachusetts Commissioner of Agriculture to respond filed.
- Mar 02 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 3, 2026)
- Dec 31 2025Application (25A739) granted by Justice Jackson extending the time to file until March 2, 2026.
- Dec 19 2025Application (25A739) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 1, 2026 to March 2, 2026, submitted to Justice Jackson.