The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a California law directing the care of pigs and hogs used for pork does not run afoul of the Constitution, giving the state the greenlight to control pork sales within its borders.
In its ruling, the court rejected a challenge brought by out-of-state pork farmers, who had argued the law causes economic damage to farmers outside of California and violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state products.
Under California’s Proposition 12, pregnant pigs must be housed within 24 square feet of free space if their pork is sold in the state. The law was passed in 2018 but had not yet been implemented. It imposes a $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail for anyone who sells pork in California that doesn’t comply.
The court generally agreed in the 58-page decision that the farmers, represented by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation, failed to state a significant legal claim. The justices upheld a lower court’s ruling against the farmers.
The court reasoned that the Commerce Clause prevents states from issuing regulations that would bolster products in-state while discriminating against out-of-state goods. But in this case, the court said California was treating all pork the same without discriminating.
“Companies that choose to sell products in various States must normally comply with the laws of those various States,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote in the court’s majority opinion. “While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. agreed with the majority opinion that precedent generally doesn’t invalidate state laws that have “extraterritorial” effects. But he also said he thought the farmers could argue the burden was “clearly excessive” compared to local benefits in an attempt to strike down Proposition 12.
“Sometimes there is no avoiding the need to weigh seemingly incommensurable values,” the chief justice wrote in a separate opinion.
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion.
Scott Hays, president of the National Pork Producers Council and a Missouri pork producer, said the group was disappointed by the justices’ decision.
“Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation. We are still evaluating the court’s full opinion to understand all the implications,” he said.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the ruling a victory.
“It means that California can continue to have in place humane and commonsense standards, instead of the extreme confinement pushed by some pork producers. The ruling by the Supreme Court affirms states’ important role in regulating goods sold within their borders,” he said.
Pork farming is a more than $28 billion industry, according to the industry research firm IBISWorld.
Hog farming is mostly concentrated in the Midwest — specifically in Iowa, Minnesota and Oklahoma. Pig farms are also found in parts of North Carolina and Texas, according to a 2022 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
About 13% of the nation’s pork is consumed in California, but the state breeds only about 0.133% of the country’s pigs, the farmers had argued.
Court watchers thought a win for California could bolster states’ authority over regulations on commerce brought into their borders and affect states’ efforts to address issues that extend beyond their jurisdictions, such as climate change.
But due to the breakdown of the justices and the narrowness of the ruling, Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, said he doesn’t see the court’s opinion and analysis reaching much beyond the pork industry.
“This doesn’t help or hurt the abortion cases. This doesn’t help or hurt the climate change cases,” Mr. Blackman said. “Whatever the law was yesterday is probably the law today.”
Similarly, Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, said it’s unlikely it could impact a major global issue such as climate.
“With climate change, which is by definition national — or rather, global — I’m not sure there’s a court majority to uphold a California regulation of, say, the emissions of an industrial plant in Texas,” Mr. Shapiro said.
Meanwhile, the National Federation of Independent Business said the court’s ruling against the pork farmers could damage small, family-run businesses.
“This Supreme Court decision will not only affect every small, family-run farm in the nation, but it changes the standard of how state governments can impose regulatory burdens on businesses and consumers outside of that state,” said Beth Milito, executive director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center. “Today’s decision sets a dangerous precedent, and small businesses will bear the consequences.”
Animal rights activists, though, cheered the ruling.
“We won’t stop fighting until the pork industry ends its cruel, reckless practice of confining mother pigs in cages so small they can’t even turn around. It’s astonishing that pork industry leaders would waste so much time and money on fighting this commonsense step to prevent products of relentless, unbearable animal suffering from being sold in California,” said Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.
The case was National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.