The Supreme Court recently rejected a challenge to a California animal welfare law that would ban the sale of pork derived from breeding pigs housed in confined spaces.
In a fractured ruling that divided the courts, the majority said the measure, known as Proposition 12, did not unlawfully regulate pork produced in other states, as the challengers claimed. The law is on hold as part of separate litigation in state court.
Five justices wrote their own opinions, showing that there was considerable dissension over what legal rationale to adopt. While five justices said the lawsuit should be dismissed, four said it should have been allowed to move forward.
The ruling, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, protects the authority of states to enact laws to protect the health and welfare of the public even if the measures have impacts out of state. Groups that back California had warned that a broad ruling against the law could limit states’ authority to enact laws about a wide variety of issues, including measures to address climate change, including efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels by promoting renewable energy.
While it is long established that states cannot use their laws to discriminate against out-of-state interests, the California law is focused on regulating the sale of pork within its own borders, he said.
Scott Hays, the president of the National Pork Producers Council, which challenged the measure, said in a statement: “We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation.”
Californians approved Proposition 12 in 2018 with nearly 63% of the vote, a margin of more than 3 million votes. The measure would require that sows have at least 24 square feet of space in their enclosures, allowing them to turn around. The state’s lawyers pointed out in court papers that voters were told the measure, which is not in effect, would most likely increase the price of pork, but provide for more humane living conditions for pigs and potentially reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses.
The National Pork Producers Council, which represents the pork industry, and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents farming interests, sued in 2019, saying the measure violates a provision of the Constitution called the commerce clause, which has been interpreted to bar states from interfering with interstate commerce.
Lower courts upheld the measure, prompting the challengers to turn to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.
Other states have passed similar laws based on moral concerns, including nine that ban products tested on animals and eight that ban eggs produced by caged hens, lawyers for the Humane Society pointed out.