National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

598 U.S. 356 (2023)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In November 2018 and with the support of about 63% of participating voters, California adopted a ballot initiative that revised the State’s existing standards for the in-state sale of eggs and announced new standards for the in-state sale of pork and veal products. Proposition 12 forbids the in-state sale of whole pork meat that comes from breeding pigs (or their immediate offspring) that are “confined in a cruel manner.” The law deems confinement “cruel” if it prevents a pig from “lying down, standing up, fully extending [its] limbs, or turning around freely.” Ps argued that existing farming practices did a better job of protecting animal welfare (for example, by preventing pig-on-pig aggression) and ensuring consumer health (by avoiding contamination) than Proposition 12 would. Ps filed this lawsuit on behalf of their members who raise and process pigs. Ps alleged that Proposition 12 violates the U. S. Constitution by impermissibly burdening interstate commerce. Ultimately, Ps estimated that “compliance with Proposition 12 will increase production costs” by “9.2% . . . at the farm level.” These compliance costs will fall on California and out-of-state producers alike. California imports almost all the pork it consumes, Ps emphasized, “the majority” of Proposition 12’s compliance costs will be initially borne by out-of-state firms. The district court held that the complaint failed to state a claim as a matter of law and dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Ps appealed.