Animal welfare advocates triumphed when the US Supreme Court declined to take up a California animal cruelty law dispute involving the sale of the duck and goose liver dish, foie gras. The decision lets stand a lower court’s ruling that the California state law could remain in place. California’s law, which dates back to July 2012, prohibits the sale of any product that has come from force-fed birds. While Californians can purchase foie gras from out-of-state sellers, the law forbids its sale and distribution in-state. In previous years, farmers and producers of poultry products in Canada joined forces with New York’s Hudson Valley Foie Gras to sue over the law. This dispute has dragged on since 2012. The Supreme Court’s recent decision does not come as a surprise; the body has maintained its tradition of not explaining its reasoning for not hearing a case.

Several similar cases have been similarly mulled over by the justices, and have either been rejected, or left on hold. The high court’s decision in the pork cruelty law case was recently upheld, which requires breeding pigs to have wider spaces. Pork industry authorities reacted negatively to the verdict, stating that its longer-term effect would be increased costs to pig farmers, which would be passed on to consumers nationwide.

Animal conservation groups gathered behind California’s law, which forbids the sale of foie gras. This luxurious dish is made from the liver of geese or ducks that have been force-fed and had their livers enlarged. The practice has been considered as unethical and inhumane for long and has attracted criticism from animal welfare groups. Producers had attempted to challenge the law several times but without success. This recent verdict will bring hope to such activists that their campaigns will, in due time, eventually yield positive outcomes.