National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Dormant Commerce Clause.
| National Pork Producers Council v. Ross | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 11, 2022 Decided May 11, 2023 | |
| Full case name | National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. Karen Ross, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture, et al. |
| Docket no. | 21-468 |
| Citations | 598 U.S. 356 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings granted, 456 F.Supp.3d 1201 (S.D. Cal. 2020); affirmed, 6 F.4th 1021 (9th Cir. 2021); cert. granted, 596 U.S. ___ (2022). |
| Questions presented | |
| (1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in this Court's decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) Whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a Pike claim. | |
| Holding | |
| The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — affirming the dismissal of a complaint challenging California’s Proposition 12 under a dormant commerce clause rationale not grounded in an allegation that the law purposefully discriminates against out-of-state economic interests — is affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Gorsuch (Parts I, II, III, IV–A, and V), joined by Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett |
| Plurality | Gorsuch (Parts IV–B and IV–D), joined by Thomas and Barrett |
| Plurality | Gorsuch (Part IV–C), joined by Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor (in part), joined by Kagan |
| Concurrence | Barrett (in part) |
| Concur/dissent | Roberts, joined by Alito, Kavanaugh, Jackson |
| Concur/dissent | Kavanaugh |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 3 | |
Background
In 2018, California's voters approved Proposition 12, which seeks to better the treatment of pigs kept for livestock by barring the sale of pork produced in conditions that are common in the industry today. Much of the pork consumed in the state is imported from other parts of the United States, so the proposition affects the national pork industry as a whole. A group of farmers and corporations in the pork industry, led by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), sued the California Department of Food and Agriculture, led by Karen Ross. They asserted the proposition violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prevents from passing laws that impact interstate commerce.[1]
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the lawsuit, with judge Thomas Whelan stating that Proposition 12 did not attempt to fully regulate the pork industry in other states.[2] The ruling was upheld in a 3-0 decision at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[1]
NPPC filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.[3]
Certiorari was granted in the case on March 28, 2022. Oral arguments were heard on October 11, 2022.
The Biden administration asked the court to overturn the law in order to protect the country's pork industry.[4]
Judgement
The Supreme Court issued its decision on May 11, 2023. In a 5–4 ruling, the court upheld the lower court ruling in dismissing the lawsuit and ruling Proposition 12 was legal.[4] The majority opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett.[1] Gorsuch accepted that states do have an interest in protecting the public health and welfare, and that this may extend to behavior occurring outside of the state. However, Gorsuch continued that while the Constitution does outline specific behavior that cannot be overridden by state laws, the requirements of Proposition 12 fell well outside that.[1]
Gorsuch addressed the ruling in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., agreeing with the judgement but stating that its standard of prohibiting "clearly excessive" effects on interstate commerce was too vague. The court did not have a majority opinion regarding the weighing of noneconomic benefits such as animal welfare against economic costs.[5]
Analyst Ian Millhiser wrote that the case was a rare instance of the Court reducing the judiciary's ability to block state laws.[5]
See also
References
- Howe, Amy (May 11, 2023). "Court upholds California animal-welfare law". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 13, 2023.
- Davies, Steve (April 29, 2020). "Judge dismisses suit challenging California's Prop 12". Argi-Pulse. Retrieved May 13, 2023.
- Howe, Amy (March 28, 2022). "Justices add three new cases, including challenge to animal-welfare law and Warhol copyright dispute". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 4, 2022.
- "Supreme Court rejects challenge to California pork law mandating more space for pigs". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved May 12, 2023.
- Millhiser, Ian (May 11, 2023). "The Supreme Court rediscovers humility — in a case about pigs". Vox. Retrieved May 15, 2023.
External links
- Text of National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. ___ (2023) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)