Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 12
On May 11, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) upheld the validity of California’s Proposition 12 by ruling against the challenge brought by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation. (Pork Producers). Proposition 12 forbids the in-state sale of certain animal products—including whole pork meat—from animals confined in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs or turning around freely. California voters approved Proposition 12 in November of 2018. After Proposition 12 was passed, Pork Producers sued the California Department of Food and Agriculture in federal court, claiming the proposition violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Their primary claim was Proposition 12 violated the judicially created common law principle known as the “Dormant Commerce Clause” doctrine because it would impose substantial new costs on out-of-state pork producers who wish to sell their products in California.
The traditional doctrine of the Dormant Commerce Clause generally prohibits individual states from regulating in-state commerce in a way that discriminatorily benefits in-state economic interests to the detriment of out-of-state economic interests. This is known as economic protectionism, and it is only permitted in exceptional circumstances. However, according to the Court’s ruling, Pork Producers did not claim Proposition 12 is discriminatory—after all, it applies to in-state and out-of-state pork producers equally. Rather, Pork Producers proceeded under two different theories associated with the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Under their first theory, Pork Producers claimed prior Court holdings created an additional and ‘almost per se’ rule forbidding enforcement of state laws that have the “practical effect of controlling commerce outside the State.” In support of this theory, Pork Producers argued Proposition 12 would violate this rule because out of state pork producers would be forced to change their production methods to abide by California’s law. However, the Court rejected Pork Producers argument because they failed to maintain the original context of the Court’s previous decisions, which is the rule is tied to preventing purposeful discrimination against out of state interests.
Under the second theory, Pork Producers claimed Proposition 12 violates an existing judicial rule articulated in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., which prevents enforcement of a state law, “… if the law’s burdens are ‘clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’” A majority of the Court held the rules articulated in Pike were not implicated in this case. In summary, the final outcome of the case is Proposition 12 has been upheld – meaning pork sold in California cannot come from pigs confined and prevented from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs or turning around freely.