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.

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 prohibits laws that impact interstate commerce.

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. The ruling was upheld in a 3-0 decision at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

NPPC filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.

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.

Judgment
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. The majority opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett. 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.

Gorsuch addressed the ruling in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., agreeing with the judgment 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. In Section IV-B, joined only by a plurality, Gorsuch suggested that courts should only be able to use the comparative balancing test from Pike when the variables to be balanced can be measured and compared directly. To him, the comparison of economic cost to humane treatment was "incommensurable."

When the Justices' votes and justifications are counted, there was a clear majority that believed Pike remains valid, namely: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Alito, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor. There was also a clear majority among the justices that that Proposition 12 could not survive a Pike analysis, namely: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Alito, Jackson, and Barrett. The fractured plurality ultimately decided to uphold the law, creating a voting paradox. Therefore, the precise precedential meaning of the case is unclear.

Analyst Ian Millhiser wrote that the case was a rare instance of the Court reducing the judiciary's ability to block state laws.