Last year, large meat-packing firms brought a case before the Supreme Court challenging California’s right to ban the sale of meat produced using cruel and unsafe practices. They argued that regulating sales of goods (in California), based on how they were produced (anywhere), is “extraterritorial legislation” because it could have practical effects.
Giant meat-packing companies challenged California’s proper to forbid the in-state sale of meat produced through violent and illegal practices in a case brought to the Supreme Court last year. They claimed that because it might have practical effects, regulating the sale of goods in California based on how they were produced ( anywhere ) is somehow “extraterritorial” legislation. Giant meat-packing companies challenged California’s right to forbid the in-state sale of meat produced through violent and illegal practices in a Supreme Court case last year. They claimed that because it might have practical effects, regulating the sale of goods ( in California ) based on how they were produced ( anywhere ) is somehow “extraterritorial” legislation.
Last year, large meat-packing firms brought a case before the Supreme Court challenging California’s right to ban the sale of meat produced using cruel and unsafe practices. They argued that regulating sales of goods (in California), based on how they were produced (anywhere), is “extraterritorial legislation” because it could have practical effects.
