The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled to uphold California’s Proposition 12, which bans the sale of uncooked pork in California that is not raised according to the state’s standards. The measure established minimum space requirements for breeding pigs, along with veal calves and egg-laying hens.
Prop 12 was passed by California voters in 2018 but has faced many hurdles on its way to implementation. The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the American Farm Bureau sued in 2019, alleging the measure violated the Constitution’s commerce clause, which regulates interstate commerce and restricts states from impairing interstate commerce. The argument eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.
Judge James P. Arguelles, in the Superior Court of California for the county of Sacramento, granted a stay on the measure through July 2023, after groups argued the industry was given no time to comply with the law because regulations had yet to be completed shortly before the law’s enforcement was set to take place in January 2022. Arguelles’ ruling was set to expire pending SCOTUS’ decision.
SCOTUS ruling
SCOTUS ruled on a count of 5-4 to uphold the proposition, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in the court’s majority opinion.
However, in his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote, “I add this opinion to point out that state economic regulations like California’s Proposition 12 may raise questions not only under the Commerce Clause, but also under the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”
He continued, “If one state conditions sale of a good on the use of preferred farming, manufacturing, or production practices in another state where the good was grown or made, serious questions may arise under the Import-Export Clause.”
He added that though he is not taking a position on whether such an argument would prevail, he notes that the question warrants additional consideration in a future case.
Reactions
Opponents of the proposition said it would have detrimental and costly effects for producers, along with raising the cost of products for consumers. Proponents argued the law would promote humane treatment and food safety values.
“Today’s landmark ruling affirms the right of states to institute policies to promote anti-cruelty and food safety standards,” said Wayne Pacelle, former president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), who helped launch Prop 12 in 2017 and is now president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy.
NPPC expressed their disappointment with the ruling. “Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” said Scott Hays, NPPC president.
The North American Meat Institute concurred, with President and CEO Julie Anna Potts saying, “Prop 12 remains a costly burden to producers and provides no benefit to animals or consumers. We are disappointed in the Court’s decision and will carefully study the ruling to determine next steps.”
HSUS expressed their satisfaction with the ruling, writing in an emailed statement, “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.” — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
