By Marlena Williams for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Kathleen Shannon for Greater Dakota News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

On Friday, the Supreme Court handed down their long-awaited opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overruling decades of settled precedent and effectively gutting the power of federal agencies to regulate on behalf of consumers, workers, animals and the environment. Loper Bright threatens a wide range of federal regulations, including policies that govern food safety and water pollution. The decision could undercut the authority of the federal agencies that regulate the meat and dairy industries and protect endangered species, meaning the loss of Chevron could also be a major loss for animals.

The Loper Bright case centered on a 40-year-old administrative law doctrine known as Chevron deference, which requires courts to defer to executive agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Under Chevron, agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Food and Drug Administration had considerable leeway to interpret federal laws and issue regulations based on their specific knowledge and expertise. The Supreme Court's momentous decision on Friday dramatically shifts power away from these federal agencies and towards the increasingly conservative federal courts.

What is Chevron Deference?

Chevron deference has been law since 1984, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In the decades after the case was decided, Chevron became shorthand for the idea that courts should defer to federal agencies when they are interpreting and applying ambiguous parts of federal statutes. As long as an agency's interpretation of a statute was reasonable, a court could not substitute its own interpretation of a law for that of an agency.

As a result, Chevron deference gave executive agencies wide latitude to fill in the gaps Congress left in sprawling, complex pieces of federal legislation. Federal agencies were able to issue regulations based on their specific expertise and respond to developing situations and needs, including climate change and the Covid pandemic.

Loper Bright and its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, take that power away from expert agencies and give judges the massive authority to make complicated, often highly technical or scientific policy decisions about everything from dangerous pollutants to life-saving medications, as well as the meat and dairy industries.

The twin cases were brought by Atlantic herring fisherman who challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) policy that required them to pay out-of-pocket for federal monitors onboard their ships to enforce limits designed to prevent overfishing. But the fishermen's victory at the Supreme Court was also a win for major corporations, conservative politicians and even several members of the current Supreme Court who have long been hostile to Chevron deference and the power it granted federal agencies.

In January, The New York Times reported that the two cases were bankrolled by the conservative Koch Network, founded by the petrochemical giants Charles and David Koch. Overruling Chevron culminates a decades-long conservative project to roll back federal regulations and eviscerate what some call "the administrative state."

A Closer Look At the Opinion

In the 35-page opinion issued on June 28, just days before the belated end of the Supreme Court's latest controversial term, Chief Justice John Roberts outlined the Court's reasoning for overturning Chevron. The Court described the Chevron decision as a misguided and inconsistently applied "fiction" riddled with a "byzantine set of preconditions and exceptions" that have led some lower courts to ignore the doctrine altogether.

Relying on a novel interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as timeworn constitutional arguments about the separation of powers, the Court asserted that it is the job of the neutral judicial system, not the executive branch, to decide complicated legal and statutory questions. While it appears that courts may still consult agency expertise for guidance, under Loper Bright, they are no longer required to give agencies deference as required by Chevron. The Court also seemed to suggest that Congress can, under certain circumstances, confer discretionary authority to an agency, but such authority will no longer be presumed.

In a forceful dissent joined by the court's three liberal justices, Justice Elena Kagan criticizes the majority for ignoring precedent, dismissing the value of agency expertise and dismantling what has become a cornerstone of modern law and governance.

"In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue - no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden - involving the meaning of regulatory law," wrote Justice Kagan. "As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country's administrative czar."

What Overruling Chevron Means for Animals and the Environment

Since the Court handed down its ruling on Friday, many groups have voiced their opposition to the decision, including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and the Southern Environmental Law Center. Environmental groups worry that the decision could have profound consequences for the agencies tasked with keeping our land, water and air healthy and clean. Without Chevron, it may be easier for polluting industries or other actors to challenge the actions of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of the Interior, in turn imperling regulations meant to curb pollution, protect the environment and slow the progress of climate change.

Earlier this year, Sentient reported on how overruling Chevron could impact farmed animals and wildlife. Many federal agencies - including the United States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - play crucial roles in regulating animal industries and protecting wildlife. Animal advocates worry that losing Chevron will make it easier for courts to overturn regulations that directly or indirectly benefit animals.

For example, the end of Chevron may threaten pending emissions limitations for slaughterhouses and rendering plants and potentially undo new animal welfare standards rolled out by the USDA.

Overruling Chevron may also undermine the power of the Endangered Species Act, which is administered by two federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Courts have often deferred to these agencies' interpretations of the Endangered Species Act in litigation involving endangered wildlife, but the ruling in Loper Bright could make endangered animals even more vulnerable by making courts less deferential to the agencies tasked with protecting them.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued finalized rules designed to revise habitat and species classifications and help the ESA to respond more readily to the effects of climate change on wildlife. Without Chevron deference, any challenge to these new rules is more likely to prevail.

However, some animal lawyers and advocates think overturning Chevron will ultimately have little impact on farmed animals, and may even benefit them. Without Chevron, judges might have room to look more critically at actions by agencies like the USDA or the EPA that have negative impacts on animals and rule in favor of advocates seeking more protections.

An Uncertain Future

Future litigation will likely be necessary before we understand the true contours of the new legal landscape the Supreme Court created last week. But it is clear that Loper Bright and Relentless signal a definitive turn towards deregulation, one that will make it even harder for agencies to regulate on the behalf of people, animals and the environment.


Marlena Williams wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Terri Dee for Indiana News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Egg producer Kipster recently announced it had failed to meet what was an ambitious goal - ending the practice of male chick culling in its U.S. supply chain, a practice responsible for culling six billion male chicks globally each year. The Dutch-based company had hoped to implement a technology called in-ovo sexing to eliminate this practice by fall of last year. But it hit a few roadblocks.

"We've been really trying hard to work with the technology provider and hatchery to get it to the United States," Sandra Vijn, who manages Kipster's U.S. operations, tells Sentient.

And there were other promising signs. Earlier this month, Walmart updated its animal welfare policies to prioritize "gendering innovation" within their egg supply chain, for instance. But the process is taking longer than expected.

Male chicks have long been considered a by-product by the egg industry because they don't lay eggs and they don't grow fast or large enough to compete with meat chickens. It's standard practice within the industry to kill them right after they hatch; approximately six billion male chicks are killed each year globally.

In-ovo technology eliminates the need to cull live, male chicks by determining whether the embryo developing inside the egg is male or female before they hatch. The male eggs are then discarded before they can finish developing. There are other alternative technologies being investigated by researchers too, like using genetic engineering to breed hens that only lay female eggs.

Still, the company is moving forward. Respeggt, a technology company that works with Kipster on the in-ovo technology, announced that their in-ovo sexing technology would be installed in the Nebraska hatchery that Kipster sources from this month. Vijn now expects to get sexed eggs from the hatchery sometime this summer. From there, it will take about 20 weeks for the hens to mature enough to start laying eggs, which the company expects to hit the market by late 2025.

Kipster Sees In-Ovo Sexing As a Temporary Solution

In-ovo sexing was not Kipster's first choice for the American market. The company wanted to take the production system that they use in the Netherlands - where male chicks are raised to be sold for meat - and replicate it in the U.S., says Vijn.

But that plan hit a snag. "We couldn't get a processor to work at the scale and price that we could afford," says Vijn. Instead of being sold for meat, the four flocks of adult roosters they had raised at their U.S. facility ended up being slaughtered, and their carcasses were donated to food banks.

For Vijn, raising male chicks for meat is preferable, as it cuts down on both waste and animal suffering. "We think that everything within our farm is a good source of food for people," she says. "With every rooster that can be eaten, there's less need to bring additional broiler chicks to life."

Ultimately, says Vijn, "we were looking at in-ovo as a temporary solution."

Satisfying the American Consumer

In the Netherlands, where Kipster was founded, consumers are willing to pay a premium for meat from chickens who had basic welfare accommodations - such as access to the outdoors - during their lives.

Since last year, all fresh chicken meat sold in Dutch grocery stores comes from slower-growth breeds of broiler chicken. Like their Dutch counterparts, consumers in the United States are also willing to pay extra for animal products - including up to 38 percent more for eggs according to a 2018 survey - that they believe were produced under higher welfare conditions.

A key difference between the two countries is that in the Netherlands, consumers buy and eat the rooster meat from layer chicken breeds, says Vijn. In Europe, Kipster also sells their spent hens - those who are no longer considered productive egg layers - for human consumption.

Consumers in the U.S. aren't so open to the idea, however. In the United States, the hens are sold for pet food.

In the U.S., Kipster raises Dekalb white chickens, a breed specifically bred to lay eggs, up to 500 in 100 weeks. Dekalb white chickens start laying eggs at around 18 weeks of age, weighing in at a little over 1300 grams.

Research has found that the high number of eggs they lay weakens their bones, making laying hens highly susceptible to bone fractures. Dekalb white chickens are especially vulnerable to these breaks.

Ultimately, the delay in bringing the technology to the United States came down to an issue of scale. Respeggt and Hendrix needed to know that there would be enough of a market for the sexed eggs. "The equipment we have is made to produce large numbers of female eggs, and acceptance from retail, and farmers took some time," Respeggt's representative told Sentient.

Sentient reached out directly to Neal Martin, General Manager of Hendrix ISA-U.S., a subsidiary of Hendrix Genetics, for comment and did not receive a reply.

For Kipster, adopting in-ovo technology remains a viable, albeit second-best option. "It really fits in our philosophy that we should be eating less eggs, less meat, less animal proteins," Vijn says, "but already use whatever is in the system so that we don't have to bring a life on earth just for the purpose of eating them."


Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana's Natural Resources Commission will decide this week whether to allow bobcat trapping, giving Hoosiers one last chance to weigh in.

The meeting will be held Tuesday at 10 a.m. at Fort Harrison State Park in Indianapolis and will determine whether the state moves forward with a plan to permit bobcat trapping in 40 southern Indiana counties next fall.

Samantha Chapman, Indiana state director of the group Humane World for Animals, stressed Hoosier voices are critical at the meeting.

"We really want folks to show up and voice their opposition to this proposal," Chapman emphasized. "Indiana's bobcats are still recovering, and we need more data on what the actual numbers and populations are for bobcats in Indiana."

Opponents said the plan is premature. The Department of Natural Resources has released only a siting map, not a full study, raising concerns the species remains vulnerable. Humane World Animals urged residents to demand a zero quota, arguing the proposal prioritizes trappers over conservation.

The plan allows trappers to capture up to 250 bobcats, with each trapper limited to one and required to obtain a special license. Chapman warned trappers will kill bobcats at a time when Indiana must prevent past population declines rather than risk undoing decades of recovery.

"While the commission can legally set a quota of zero, it is instead proposed allowing 250 bobcats to be barbarically trapped, bludgeoned, strangled, stomped or shot," Chapman contended. "This is why we need Hoosiers to speak up at the Natural Resources Commission meeting."

Conservationists stressed live bobcats generate more economic benefits through tourism than trapping ever could. They urged Hoosiers to turn out in force Tuesday and speak before the commission makes its final decision.


get more stories like this via email

By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

As egg prices continue to skyrocket across the United States, some consumers are looking for alternative ways to secure affordable eggs, including turning to their backyard. Last month, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, penned a commentary outlining her plan to help "lower egg prices." Among her proposals - such as vaccinating chickens and reassessing California's Proposition 12, which tightened animal welfare laws - there was also a nod to raising backyard chickens.

In her commentary, Rollins writes that part of the plan is "to make it easier for families to raise backyard chickens." There was no expansion on this point, however, outside of a sentence in the USDA release of the plan promising to "minimize burdens on individual farmers and consumers who harvest homegrown eggs." A spate of articles also suggests the notion is picking up steam. Yet even though the idea may seem like a potential solution to rising egg prices, research suggests that keeping chickens for eggs may just bring the risks of avian flu to your backyard. In short, because your backyard is not protected from wild birds.

"The more birds that you have, especially when they kind of overlap with waterfowl habitat, for example, the increased risk you're going to have [of bird flu]," Maurice Pitesky, associate professor and expert in poultry disease modeling at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, tells Sentient.

The increased risk applies to industrial egg operations. Nearly 99 percent of farm animals in the U.S. are raised on factory farms - operations where animals are crowded together, often in unsanitary conditions. These settings are breeding grounds for diseases like bird flu, as the density and poor care make it easy for viruses to spread quickly. But it's not just factory farms that are at risk. In the past year, bird flu outbreaks have made headlines across the United States, and backyard chickens have not been immune to its reach.

Backyard Flocks Impacted

Over the last 30 days, 51 backyard flocks across the U.S. have confirmed cases of avian influenza, compared to 59 cases in commercial operations, as of March 3. While the number of affected backyard flocks is slightly lower overall, it's important to remember that the risk to smaller, home-raised flocks remains significant, primarily because the disease is often spread through wild birds - including their droppings and saliva - who can easily get to a backyard flock.

Wyoming recently reported its first human case of bird flu, which is believed to have been contracted from exposure to a backyard flock. The first severe case of avian flu in the U.S. occurred in December 2024 in Louisiana, where it was determined that the person had been exposed to sick and dead birds from a backyard flock. This person also became the first person in the U.S to die from the virus.

"This case underscores that, in addition to affected commercial poultry and dairy operations, wild birds and backyard flocks also can be a source of exposure," the Center for Disease Control has stated about this case.

Bird flu can spread to people through various routes in a backyard farm, according to the CDC, including direct contact with infected birds, their droppings and contaminated equipment.

The Spread: Wild Birds and Backyard Flocks

It's tempting to assume that backyard chickens are safer from bird flu than large commercial farms due to their smaller flock size and less crowded living conditions. But this assumption overlooks the critical role of wild birds in spreading the virus.

The virus is frequently carried by wild birds, many of which are migrating across the country. For backyard chicken keepers, this poses a serious risk, as wild birds can easily come into contact with their flocks, potentially bringing the virus with them.

Benjamin Anderson, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental and Global Health at the University of Florida, told Sentient in an email that wild birds, particularly ducks and geese, are the main carriers that can introduce the flu into backyard flocks. Outbreaks are also more concentrated along migratory bird flyways, Anderson noted, with four major routes across the U.S.

A 2021 study on avian flu transmission pathways found that flocks near or in contact with waterfowl and migratory birds are at a higher risk of infection. Although the study primarily focuses on commercial farms, its insights are also relevant to backyard operations - in essence, the researchers found that the virus can spread more widely when chickens aren't properly isolated from these outside threats. Infected birds can release the virus through their saliva and feces - in other words, exposure doesn't require direct contact with a backyard chicken.

Though backyard chickens are often not as crowded together as chickens raised commercially, birds raised in backyards are vulnerable to bird flu thanks to the lack of strict biosecurity regulations. Unlike commercial farms, which are at least required to follow certain guidelines to prevent outbreaks (such as regular testing and isolating infected animals), there is no oversight or enforcement for smaller, home-raised flocks.

With backyard bird flocks, says Pitesky, "their biosecurity on average is not ideal." There are a number of reasons why that can be the case, including a lack of "adequate fencing." It can even be as simple as the hobbyist may be pressed for time. "People have lives," says Pitesky. To keep backyard chickens safe, Pitesky says, "it takes some time and energy and money."

Backyard chicken keepers may not be aware of the measures they should take to minimize risk of exposure. A 2024 survey study in the UK of 1,550 poultry keepers found that not all backyard poultry owners were following biosecurity measures mandated by the government. The researchers found that some poultry keepers were unaware of what was required of them or faced barriers such as expenses, fewer carers for the birds and other welfare concerns.

The CDC has issued guidelines for backyard chicken owners to follow, such as restricting human access to their chickens, keeping them in enclosed spaces and minimizing exposure to wild birds. But if backyard chicken keepers do not implement these protocols effectively, the birds are left exposed to the virus.

Should You Raise Backyard Chickens During a Bird Flu Outbreak?

Anecdotally at least, Anderson has found that more people are interested in having backyard chickens these days, especially with high egg prices. And though both Anderson and Pitesky see the appeal of having backyard flocks, they also point to the risk associated with keeping them.

It's crucial to understand that keeping backyard chickens during an outbreak requires significant research, preparation and strict adherence to CDC guidelines. The CDC recommends wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling sick or dead birds, cleaning and disinfecting contaminated areas and avoiding stirring up dust or bird waste that may spread the virus. In an email to Sentient, Anderson writes "people should take necessary steps to learn how to raise poultry safely and according to local and state rules."

However, this guidance quickly becomes complicated - some infected birds (especially those that are infected with a low pathogenic strain of bird flu) may not show symptoms. This strain can then mutate into the highly pathogenic version. As a result, flock owners may not realize they need PPE or take proper measures when dealing with asymptomatic birds. They may end up spreading the virus unwittingly.

The Bottom Line

Though the current risk of contracting bird flu remains low for most of the public, the middle of a bird flu outbreak may not be the best time to start keeping backyard chickens. It may sound appealing to be able to source "free" eggs from your backyard, but the reality is that keeping backyard chickens safe from bird flu requires time and money. And ultimately, raising chickens in a backyard doesn't eliminate the risk of spreading the virus, and could even exacerbate the problem if you don't take the proper precautions recommended by the CDC.

As for Secretary Rollins' plan to make raising backyard chickens easier for homeowners, the details remain unclear. Sentient reached out to the USDA for more information on how her plan addresses these concerns, but has yet to receive a response.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email