Skip to content
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
      • Center for Consumer Protection
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • ConsumerResources.org
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
Log In
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
      • Center for Consumer Protection
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • ConsumerResources.org
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us

Supreme Court Report: National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468

Home / Supreme Court / Supreme Court Report: National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468
April 11, 2022 Supreme Court
Share this

  • Dan Schweitzer
    Director, Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
    National Association of Attorneys General

April 11, 2022
Volume 29, Issue 11

This Report summarizes opinions issued on March 23, 24, and 31, and April 4, 2022 (Part I); and cases granted review on March 28, 2022 (Part II).

Cases Granted Review: National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468. The Court will resolve a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to California’s Proposition 12, which makes it a criminal and civil violation to sell pork in California unless the pig it comes from was born to a sow that was housed with 24 square feet of usable space and in conditions that allow the sow to turn around freely without touching the enclosure. The voters of California adopted Proposition 12 in November 2018; it directs that farm owners and operators in California must not “knowingly cause” certain animals “to be confined in a cruel manner.” One standard imposed by the proposition is that in-state breeders of pigs must abide by the 24-square-feet-of-usable-space requirement; and the in-state sale of meat from breeding pigs (and their offspring) must abide by that requirement. The ballot arguments submitted in support of Proposition 12 stated that it would address especially “inhumane and unsafe” meat production practices. Californians consume 13% of the pork eaten in the U.S., but 99.87% of the pork consumed there comes from hogs born on farms outside of the state. In December 2019, petitioners (the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation) brought a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to Proposition 12’s in-state sales restriction on pork. The district court dismissed petitioners’ complaint, ruling that “Proposition 12 applies to . . . California producers just the same as out-of-state producers” and “does not regulate extraterritorially.” The court also held that petitioners failed to adequately allege a claim under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970), which asks whether a challenged law imposes a burden on interstate commerce that is “clearly excessive in relation to [its] putative local benefits.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed. 6 F.4th 1021.

The Ninth Circuit emphasized that petitioners have “not allege[d] that Proposition 12 has a discriminatory effect” or that it “discriminates against out-of-state interests.” The court also concluded that Proposition 12 “regulate[s] only conduct in the state, including the sale of products in the state.” While acknowledging that, “as a practical matter,” certain pork producers will opt to make changes to their out-of-state production or distribution methods in response to Proposition 12, the court ruled that such “indirect,” “upstream effects” cannot, on their own, render a law invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause. As to petitioners’ Pike claim, the Ninth Circuit held that petitioners’ allegation that “Proposition 12 makes pork production more expensive” was insufficient, on its own, to state a claim that the measure imposes a clearly excessive burden on interstate commerce.

Petitioners argue that Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause in two ways. First, petitioners claim that, because compliance with Proposition 12 will require pork producers (who are overwhelmingly out-of-state) to engage in massive and costly alteration to existing sow housing nationwide, Proposition 12 regulates wholly out-of-state commerce, and therefore has impermissible extraterritorial effects. In making that argument, petitioners ask the Court to affirm that the extraterritoriality principle of the dormant Commerce Clause applies to all laws that impose practical burdens on out-of-state commerce, even if those burdens are indirect effects of state regulation.  Petitioners also ask the Court to resolve a circuit spilt as to the scope of the extraterritoriality principle and whether it applies predominantly, if not exclusively, to price-control and price-affirmation statutes.

Petitioners also argue that Proposition 12 fails the balancing test set forth in Pike.  Again pointing to the increased costs to conform existing sow enclosures to the requirements of Proposition 12, petitioners take issue with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that these costs were not cognizable burdens. Petitioners argue that “Proposition 12 in practice (1) requires a significant restructuring of an entire national, $26-billion industry; (2) requires out-of-state farmers to adopt housing that they believe endangers their herds, employees, and livelihoods; (3) requires California-compliant housing for sows regardless of whether their offspring are sold in California or elsewhere; and (4) will result in consolidation of the industry and put sow farmers out of business. Saying that these and other effects of Proposition 12 are just ‘increased costs’ that don’t count for dormant Commerce Clause purposes turns the Pike inquiry into a largely meaningless exercise.” Petitioners argue that Proposition 12 provides no local benefit because (1) “[t]here is no evidence that the square footage provided to a sow has any bearing on the safety of pork derived from her offspring,” and (2) “[p]reventing allegedly cruel treatment of sows in other states—where the pigs are raised in compliance with those states’ laws—is not a legitimate ‘local benefit.’”

California responds in part that, “[a]s then-Judge Gorsuch explained, a rule providing that such indirect, upstream effects are sufficient to render a state law invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause would ‘risk serious problems of overinclusion.’ [Energy & Env. Legal Inst. v. Epel, 793 F.3d 1169, 1175 (10th Cir. 2015)]. The ‘reality is that the States frequently regulate activities that occur entirely within one State but that have effects in many.’ Am. Beverage Ass’n v. Snyder, 735 F.3d 362, 379 (6th Cir. 2013) (Sutton, J., concurring). States routinely adopt ‘standards for products sold in-state (standards concerning, for example, quality, labeling, health, or safety)’ that have ‘ripple effects . . . both in-state and elsewhere’—including, at times, effects on how out-of-state businesses opt to structure their production or distribution practices with respect to products sold in the enacting State’s market. Epel, 793 F.3d at 1173. As courts throughout the Nation have recognized, that kind of upstream, ‘practical effect’ does not render a state law invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause extraterritoriality doctrine.” As to Pike balancing, California quotes Judge Easterbrook’s statement that “[i]f Pike invited constitutional challenges based merely on concerns that a law would be economically disruptive to a particular industry, the Pike balancing inquiry would resemble ‘judicial review of statutory wisdom [in] the fashion of Lochner.’” California adds that, “[i]n any event, petitioners overstate the practical economic effects of Proposition 12.” And California says “[t]here is nothing illegitimate or insubstantial . . . about the voters’ expressed purpose of addressing ‘extreme methods of farm animal confinement’ and potential ‘threat[s] [to] the health and safety of California consumers’ (such as ‘risk[s] of foodborne illness’).”

[Editor’s note: Some of the language in the background section of the summary above was taken from the petition for writ of certiorari and brief in opposition.]

Related Posts

Related Posts

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 20

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 13

Supreme Court Report, Volume 32, Issue 6

Connect with NAAG and the Attorney General Community

Create a NAAG account to subscribe to our newsletters or mailing lists.

Create Account
Subscribe
Marble columns and the top of a federal building

scroll to filters

White Logo for the National Association of Attorneys General

1850 M Street NW
12th floor
Washington, DC 20036

TEL 202-326-6000
EMAIL 

Youtube
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
      • Center for Consumer Protection
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • ConsumerResources.org
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy & Cookies Notice
  • Sitemap
  • Member Login

About the National Association of Attorneys General

As the nonpartisan national forum for America's state and territory attorneys general and their staff, NAAG provides collaboration, insight, and expertise to empower and champion America's attorneys general.
Learn More

© 2025 Copyright National Association of Attorneys General

Website by Yoko Co

Internal Feedback / Report an Error

Request an Update / Report an Error

The change you are requesting will be linked to this page. The URL for the page will be included in a hidden field when the form is submitted.
Please enter your change or describe your request. Be sure to reference where the error appears on the page and what needs to be done specifically.
Upload any files that need to be linked to this page. PDF only. Submit another request if you have more than five files to upload.
Drop files here or
Accepted file types: pdf, docx, xls, Max. file size: 50 MB, Max. files: 5.

    Who is requesting this change?(Required)

    Scroll To Top

    Insert/edit link

    Enter the destination URL

    Or link to existing content

      No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.
        To provide you more clarity about how we collect, store and use personal information, and your rights to control that information, we have updated our privacy policy, which also explains how we use cookies. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.I Agree