National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

Supreme Court of the United States
598 U. S. ____ (2023) (2023)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state law that conditions the in-state sale of a consumer good on the production methods used outside the state does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause if the law is not purposefully discriminatory against out-of-state economic interests and applies equally to in-state and out-of-state producers.

Facts:

In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12, a ballot initiative.
Proposition 12 forbids the in-state sale of whole pork meat that comes from breeding pigs (or their immediate offspring) that are 'confined in a cruel manner.'
The law defines confinement as 'cruel' if it prevents a pig from 'lying down, standing up, fully extending [its] limbs, or turning around freely.'
The stated goals of Proposition 12 were to improve animal welfare and protect the health and safety of California consumers.
California imports almost all of the pork its residents consume, meaning the majority of producers affected by the law are outside of California.
The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation are organizations representing pig farmers and processors, many of whom are located outside California.
Compliance with Proposition 12's space requirements would require many out-of-state producers to make significant capital investments and change their methods of operation, increasing their production costs.
Proposition 12's sales ban applies equally to pork produced within California and pork produced in other states.

Procedural Posture:

The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation sued Karen Ross, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (a court of first instance).
The lawsuit alleged that California's Proposition 12 unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.
The district court granted the state's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The petitioners appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (an intermediate appellate court).
A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the complaint did not plausibly allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce.
The petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state law that bans the in-state sale of whole pork meat derived from breeding pigs confined in a manner the state deems cruel violate the dormant Commerce Clause by imposing a substantial burden on interstate commerce, even though the law applies to both in-state and out-of-state producers?

Opinions:

Majority - Gorsuch

No, the law does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. A state law does not impermissibly burden interstate commerce simply because it has significant economic effects on out-of-state producers, so long as it is not driven by economic protectionism. The Court rejected the petitioners' argument for an 'almost per se' rule against state laws with 'extraterritorial effects,' clarifying that prior cases like Baldwin and Healy were primarily concerned with preventing purposeful discrimination against out-of-state economic interests, not merely regulating products based on out-of-state conduct. Regarding the Pike balancing test, the Court explained that its primary function is to identify discriminatory purpose through a law's practical effects. A plurality further reasoned that courts are not institutionally suited to weigh a state's non-economic moral and health benefits against the economic costs to out-of-state industries. Finally, a separate plurality concluded that the petitioners failed to plead a substantial burden on interstate commerce, as the complaint primarily alleged harm to particular firms' 'methods of operation' rather than harm to the interstate market itself, drawing a parallel to Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland.

Concurring - Sotomayor

No, the law does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. While courts are capable of performing the Pike balancing test, this claim fails at the threshold. Petitioners failed to plausibly allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce as required by Pike before any balancing of benefits and burdens is necessary. The complaint's allegations of harm to specific producers and their business models are insufficient under the precedent set by Exxon.

Concurring - Barrett

No, the law does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Although the complaint plausibly alleges a substantial burden on interstate commerce, the Pike balancing test cannot be applied here because the benefits and burdens are incommensurable. A court cannot weigh California's moral interest in animal welfare on the same scale as the economic costs in dollars and cents without making policy judgments reserved for legislatures.

Dissenting - Roberts

Yes, the law could violate the dormant Commerce Clause, and the case should be remanded. The petitioners plausibly alleged a substantial burden on interstate commerce that extends beyond mere compliance costs to include market-wide harms and sweeping extraterritorial effects. The Ninth Circuit erred by conflating all economic harms with simple 'compliance costs.' The case should be returned to the lower courts to conduct the Pike balancing test and determine whether the substantial burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits.

Analysis:

This decision significantly curtails the reach of the dormant Commerce Clause, particularly for challenges to non-discriminatory state regulations based on the Pike balancing test and the 'extraterritoriality' doctrine. It affirms that states have broad authority to regulate goods sold within their borders for moral, health, or safety reasons, even if these regulations impose substantial costs on out-of-state producers and affect their out-of-state operations. The ruling creates a high barrier for future dormant Commerce Clause challenges that cannot show intentional economic protectionism, shifting the primary avenue for relief for affected industries from the judiciary to Congress.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"