Supreme Court docket file for case #21-468, National Pork Producers Council, et al., Petitioners v. Karen Ross, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture, et al.
Issues: (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 the Supreme 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 claim under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.
Essentially, the State of California is not only attempting to dictate humane standards to 49 other States, it is also attempting to do the same to Canada.
This has nothing to do with how pork should be raised. It has everything to do with a single State attempting to impose its absolute will on other States and foreign nations.
I think the Supreme Court recognizes this, which is why they have taken this case. I strongly believe they will reverse the Ninth Circuit and invoke the Dormant Commerce Clause, meaning that California can ONLY regulate those pork producers located physically in California.
The Cato Institute amicus brief in this case handles both the dormant commerce clause issue and the sub-issue of territoriality, essentially stating that Proposition 12 violates Federalism by imposing a dictate of the people of California on the United States as a whole.
I am glad the Supreme Court took this case and I look forward to a ruling for the Petitioners in the October 2022 Term.
If Congress was to pass a statute to the same effect as Proposition 12, that would be fine. But neither the people of California nor their Legislature can dictate to the United States as a whole.