Can Pork Products be Banned in an American City?

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, pork products can be banned; and they probably will eventually be banned. That goes doubly if lots of people become Muslims here, because religious people generally start banning things that they aren't allowed to have. The same goes for high numbers of certain varieties of Hindus. They'll ban meat.

 

[dust1n]

A city near me (Hamtramck, Michigan) became the first city in America with a Muslim majority on its city council. They passed an ordinance saying alcohol can not be sold within a certain distance of a mosque. The non-Muslim mayor of the city does not like what is going on.

I want to speculate on the hypotheticals. Could they ban the sale of alcohol altogether in the city? I think they can because I think there are dry cities/counties in America now. I want to kick it up a notch. Theoretically, can the city council ban the sale of pork products in the city? Then what?

I grew up around multiple dry counties growing up. This would a county where it is illegal to sell alcohol...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, pork products can be banned; and they probably will eventually be banned. That goes doubly if lots of people become Muslims here, because religious people generally start banning things that they aren't allowed to have. The same goes for high numbers of certain varieties of Hindus. They'll ban meat.

I don't think so. Individuals, and even the majority of voters may support such action, but it would be unlikely to stand up in US court because such bans are clearly based in religion, and it would be difficult to make a case that it is not. For government to pass a ban that would pass court challenge, there would have to be a recognized public purpose--to protect the health and safety of members of the public, for example.

 

[Akivah]

A city near me (Hamtramck, Michigan) became the first city in America with a Muslim majority on its city council. They passed an ordinance saying alcohol can not be sold within a certain distance of a mosque. The non-Muslim mayor of the city does not like what is going on.

I want to speculate on the hypotheticals. Could they ban the sale of alcohol altogether in the city? I think they can because I think there are dry cities/counties in America now. I want to kick it up a notch. Theoretically, can the city council ban the sale of pork products in the city? Then what?

There is a long history of regulation against alcohol in this country. Whether against where it can be consumed (such as proximity to schools), when it can be consumed (e.g. not on Sundays), and who can consume it (e.g. legal age). So the council can easily ban alcohol sales in certain locations with strong backing from American law. However, AKAIK there are no precedents in America banning generic food items, in this case, pork. I'd think they'd have an uphill fight to regulate against the sale of pork.

I think simple economics would take care of any Muslim concern about pork sales. For example, there are almost no pork retailers in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods. Not from regulation, but because the locals don't buy the product. Those businesses would re-locate their businesses to profitable areas all on their own.

 

[Nous]

Several states have banned the slaughter of horses and/or the sale of horse meat for human consumption. The Seventh Circuit upheld an Illinois statute that prohibited the slaughtering of horses for human consumption, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. I don’t see any impediment to a city banning the sale of pig meat for human consumption.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Several states have banned the slaughter of horses and/or the sale of horse meat for human consumption. The Seventh Circuit upheld an Illinois statute that prohibited the slaughtering of horses for human consumption, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. I don’t see any impediment to a city banning the sale of pig meat for human consumption.

Horse meat has not been a common foodstuff in America. Neither have cats, dogs and a variety of other creatures, which are also banned throughout the US--by the states and the federal government. Hogs, however, have historically been a common source of meat for human consumption, therefore any effort to ban it overall would need to show some compelling reason.

Municipalities are "creatures of the state," and have fairly limited powers granted to them by the state governments. What compelling public interest are you supposing that a city, or a state, could completely ban the slaughter and sale of hogs for human consumption that is not rooted in a religious prohibition?

PS welcome to the forums!

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think so. Individuals, and even the majority of voters may support such action, but it would be unlikely to stand up in US court because such bans are clearly based in religion, and it would be difficult to make a case that it is not. For government to pass a ban that would pass court challenge, there would have to be a recognized public purpose--to protect the health and safety of members of the public, for example.

Maybe, but the members of the Supreme Court die occasionally and replacements must be appointed by the elected president. In the case that the supreme court were packed they could uphold laws banning Pork. It just requires a change in the religion of the population for that to happen.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Maybe, but the members of the Supreme Court die occasionally and replacements must be appointed by the elected president. In the case that the supreme court were packed they could uphold laws banning Pork. It just requires a change in the religion of the population for that to happen.

Potentially true, but I would not recommend holding your breath. And, the Supreme Court is not the only path to change in the law: there is always the option of the Constitutional Amendment...

 

[Nous]

Horse meat has not been a common foodstuff in America. Neither have cats, dogs and a variety of other creatures, which are also banned throughout the US--by the states and the federal government. Hogs, however, have historically been a common source of meat for human consumption, therefore any effort to ban it overall would need to show some compelling reason.

Municipalities are "creatures of the state," and have fairly limited powers granted to them by the state governments. What compelling public interest are you supposing that a city, or a state, could completely ban the slaughter and sale of hogs for human consumption that is not rooted in a religious prohibition?

What would be the basis of a challenge to this ordinance? There is no fundamental or constitutional right for a person to purchase dead pig products to consume. Therefore there is no reason that the government should have to articulate a compelling governmental interest for this city ordinance.

As Judge Posner noted in Cavel, “a state is permitted, within reason, to express disgust at what people do with . . . dead animals.” Presumably a city is permitted to express the same disgust regarding dead pigs--as long as it doesn’t violate a state or federal law. And this city ordinance does not seem to violate any law.

PS welcome to the forums!

Thank you! It's such an excellent forum.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps we'd see a banning war.....
One town bans pork, another retaliates by banning Halal food, & so it proceeds.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What would be the basis of a challenge to this ordinance? There is no fundamental or constitutional right for a person to purchase dead pig products to consume. Therefore there is no reason that the government should have to articulate a compelling governmental interest for this city ordinance.

As Judge Posner noted in Cavel, “a state is permitted, within reason, to express disgust at what people do with . . . dead animals.” Presumably a city is permitted to express the same disgust regarding dead pigs--as long as it doesn’t violate a state or federal law. And this city ordinance does not seem to violate any law.


Thank you! It's such an excellent forum.

It violates the right of businesses and consumers to engage in free trade. Government does not have the right to do anything at all that the leaders decide--the federal and state constitutions limit the things that governments can regulate, and in order to do something like ban a particular product or service, the government must be able to show that there is a compelling public need--such as protecting the health or safety of the population. To survive a legal challenge to such a city ordinance, the city government would have to show that there is some good reason that businesses should not sell nor consumers purchase pork products. Religious preferences of the elected officials or the majority of the population is not relevant--because historically the production, sale and consumption of pork has been limited to only matters regarding quality and health, the city government (or state government) would have to show why the production, sale and consumption of port is such a threat to the public's health and safety (or some other recognized legal principle) that it must be banned outright.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Potentially true, but I would not recommend holding your breath. And, the Supreme Court is not the only path to change in the law: there is always the option of the Constitutional Amendment...

Yes, and the constitutional document is written to describe the constitution that is the people of the US. The document is not the real constitution but is a document describing it. Its possible that if the Supreme court declares that the document no longer describes the real constitution, then it could circumvent statements in the constitutional document or its amendments. The Supreme court always risks losing its prestige if it makes stupid judgements, just as the congress risks losing power if it refuses to pass budgets. Even if it completely overturns the written constitution, the Supreme court may still gain in prestige if the people approve of the judgement.

 

[Nous]

It violates the right of businesses and consumers to engage in free trade.

Obviously there is no such right articulated in the US Constitution, nor in any state constitution. If there were, the various state laws that ban the sale of horse and dog meat for human consumption would violate such a right, as apparently would all other of the zillions of laws that prohibit or regulate sales of something.

Anyway, I doubt it is true that Hamtramck banned the sale of pork (unfortunately). I am unable to find any source for this claim.

But, if some small town were to pass such an ordinance, a challenge to it would be in the same (or worse) circumstance as the challenge to the Illinois law that prohibits the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Since such a law does not violate any fundamental or Constitutional right, courts would review the challenge under a rational basis standard, in which the law is assumed to be constitutional and the complainant has the burden of proof to show that the law is unconstitutional. The Illinois law was naturally alleged to violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (in addition to the Federal Meat Inspection Act). But as in the case of the Illinois law, a city ordinance banning sales of pork products would not be discriminatory, which is the primary affront to the Commerce Clause (where a jurisdiction places burdens on or taxes another state’s products in order to benefit itself). Nor would it seem that a small town’s ban on sales of pork could be argued to have the potential “to distort the operation of interstate markets” in pork, in violation of Commerce Clause precedent.

Cavel quotes the important Commerce Clause exception stated in Pike v. Bruce Church: “Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.”

Under a rational basis review, the government does not really have to even proffer a “legitimate local public interest” unless the complainant makes a prima facie case of a constitutional violation. The court can imagine its own public policy reasons for the law. Illinois apparently didn’t offer much justification for its law, and didn’t need to. If the claims in the OP about the ordinance and Hamtramck were true, the alleged religious reason for the ordinance doesn’t really help to justify it (unless perhaps the majority of the town is Muslim). But public policy justifications often have some religious premise--such as zoning ordinances that forbid strip clubs or liquor stores within so many feet of a church.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hamtramck hasn't banned pork.
This was just a what-if speculation.
A old Polish town without pork would be impossible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@Alceste used to say she wouldn't eat pork because she couldn't stand the thought of eating something that was at least as smart as half the human population of North America. I kind of agree with her on that one.

Ridiculous. That would take baby right off the menu.
Sidenote : I miss @Alceste posting here.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It's a right that falls under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. And, apparently, despite your knowledge of legal terminology and cases, you are unfamiliar with US history. The Constitution was written by a group of property owners and business men who wanted to ensure that free trade was not impeded, and in many ways, was enabled, by government. And that still seems to be the case today.

 

[MARCELLO]

UAE ,Dubai is a good lesson for everyone,I have seen pork department in their markets.

Yes, pork products can be banned; and they probably will eventually be banned. That goes doubly if lots of people become Muslims here, because religious people generally start banning things that they aren't allowed to have. The same goes for high numbers of certain varieties of Hindus. They'll ban meat.

I have enormous dislike against eggplants. Where is my civil rights? Who will ban eggplants??

 

[crossfire]

A city near me (Hamtramck, Michigan) became the first city in America with a Muslim majority on its city council. They passed an ordinance saying alcohol can not be sold within a certain distance of a mosque. The non-Muslim mayor of the city does not like what is going on.

I want to speculate on the hypotheticals. Could they ban the sale of alcohol altogether in the city? I think they can because I think there are dry cities/counties in America now. I want to kick it up a notch. Theoretically, can the city council ban the sale of pork products in the city? Then what?

I'm not sure that specifying a special zoning code regarding what can be bought and sold around a mosque will stand up, as a mosque is not a public building, such as a school, public park, library, or courthouse. An exception might be made for private schools and daycares, as children congregate there.

One way around specifying areas around mosques as alcohol retail restricted zones would be to physically map zoning boundaries where alcohol sales are prohibited and where they are permitted, and they can draw the lines themselves. This way, an existing business would not be forced out if someone built a mosque next to it, as the zone was predefined before the mosque decided to build there.

As for prohibiting the sale of pork, municipalities restrict the sale of specific items all the time, such as prohibiting the sale of ivory, rhino horns, etc., within their jurisdictions. (Remember the attempt to ban dihydrogen monoxide?)

 

[Adramelek]

Here in Oklahoma the Baptists established a law to where alcohol cannot be sold within a certain distance of a church or school and liquor stores cannot be open on Sundays. I doubt though muslims would be able to establish any kind of sharia law in the US because a lot of it would go against the US Constitution and federal law. Cities or states cannot pass laws that go against federal law or the Constitution. The banning of pork products could happen here in the US, but only when pigs develop the ability to fly.

 

[Revoltingest]