The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and American Farm Bureau Federation’s petition to strike down Proposition 12 as unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause.
“We are disappointed in the court’s decision and maintain our position on Prop 12: It is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause,” NPPC spokesman Jim Monroe says. “We are evaluating the decision and our next steps.”
The court said for dormant Commerce Clause purposes, laws that increase compliance costs, without more, do not constitute a significant burden on interstate commerce. The court’s decision was 3-0.
The court said the groups’ complaint against the state “fails to make a plausible allegation that the pork production industry is of such national concern that it is analogous to taxation or interstate travel, where uniform rules are crucial. Although the complaint plausibly alleges that Proposition 12 will have an impact on a national industry, we have already held that such impacts do not render the state law impermissibly extraterritorial.”
William Friedman of EarthClaims LLC, says, “The Ninth Circuit’s decision is unremarkable, especially given the narrow chance of winning under the controlling cases in the Ninth Circuit. Although I am pretty sure we will see a petition to the Supreme Court, it’s an uphill push from here. This kind of case is not typically a high priority for the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Proposition 12, set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2022, will impose animal housing standards that reach far outside the state’s borders to farms across the country, NPPC said, while driving up costs for both pork producers and consumers.
“The challenges U.S. hog farmers face from Proposition 12 are daunting and come on top of the ravages of trade retaliation in 2018-19 and the shock of COVID-19 in 2020,” NPPC President Jen Sorenson wrote in a May 27 letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Hog farmers are also faced in 2021 with a federal district court decision which, if left unchecked, will result in a loss of 2.5% of national pork harvest capacity -- handing pork packers more market power at the expenses of hog farmers, especially smaller producers.”
In late June, the Supreme Court denied a petition filed by the North American Meat Institute, with the support of 20 states, to review Proposition 12. The denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari was among dozens announced on June 28 by the court. No explanation was provided for the reason why the petition was denied. The petition challenged the sales ban in California on veal and pork not raised according to Prop 12’s housing standards.
Read more on Proposition 12:
Pork Industry Braces for Catastrophic Costs to Implement Proposition 12
Supreme Court Rejects Meat Institute’s Petition to Review Proposition 12
Proposition 12 Pressures Aren’t Going Away
On-Demand Webinar: Proposition 12: Where Do We Go From Here?
20 States Back Challenge to the Constitutionality of California’s Prop 12
California’s Proposition 12 Would Cost U.S. Pork Industry Billions
