I mentioned the WTO law of foie gras bans here. A WTO complaint may be unlikely, but apparently a commerce clause challenge (along with due process challenges as well) has begun. Here is an excerpt from the complaint:
14 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15 Declaratory Relief - Violation of the Commerce Clause - Interstate and Foreign
17 46. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the preceding
19 47. The Commerce Clause restricts states from boycotting lawful goods in
20 interstate and foreign commerce, from directly regulating beyond their borders, from
21 discriminating against out-of-state goods in interstate and foreign commerce, and from
22 placing excessive burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.
23 48. As alleged above, in prohibiting the sale in California of lawful goods from
24 the state of New York and Canada in interstate and foreign commerce - namely,
25 USDA-approved, wholesome and unadulterated duck products - section 25982
26 violates the Commerce Clause.
27 49. As alleged above, in forcing New York and Canadian farmers such as
28 Plaintiffs Hudson Valley and the members of AECOQ to conform their duck feeding
1 practices to the vague and arbitrary limitation in section 25980(b) in order to sell their
2 products in California, section 25982 directly regulates out-of-state and foreign conduct
3 and therefore violates the Commerce Clause.
4 50. As alleged above, because the Bird Feeding Law bans the production of
5 duck products using its prohibited feeding practices, the practical effect of section
6 25982's ban on the sale of such duck products is to discriminate against out-of-state
7 and foreign goods such as those from Plaintiffs AECOQ's members and from Hudson
8 Valley, and section 25982 therefore violates the Commerce Clause.
9 51. As alleged above, section 25982 places excessive burdens on interstate and
10 foreign commerce without advancing any legitimate local interest in the feeding of
11 ducks beyond California's borders.
12 52. As alleged above, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists
13 regarding a matter - the constitutionality of section 25982 - over which this Court
14 has subject matter jurisdiction. A declaratory judgment will terminate and afford relief
15 from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to this action.