U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments on California pig law in October

August 15, 2022

By JOSH FRIEDMAN

The United States Supreme Court in October will hear oral arguments in a challenge to California’s Proposition 12, a law that requires each pig to have 24 square feet of space.

Prop. 12 also bans the sale of pork products from other states, where most pork consumed in California originates, if the rancher does not abide by the law’s space requirements. Ranchers, retailers and restaurant owners have voiced concerns that the currently paused law will double or triple the price of pork.

Oral arguments will take place before the Supreme Court on Oct. 11. Each side will receive about 30 minutes to argue their case. Following oral arguments, the court will have the remainder of its term to deliver an opinion in the case, which could come around June 2023.

The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation are petitioning the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of one state imposing excessively burdensome regulations on other states. They argue the law violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“California consumes 13% of U.S. pork, but produces only 0.1% of what it consumes,” according to the petition. “Proposition 12’s sow-housing requirements thus fall almost exclusively on farmers outside of its borders. The Ninth Circuit accurately described petitioners’ allegations about how those requirements operate extraterritorially to disrupt the $26-billion-a-year market in pork, force California’s preferred production methods on farmers everywhere, and impose the high costs of those methods on out-of-state farmers and consumers…”

The state of California claims Prop. 12 is similar to existing requirements that out-of-state producers use particular labels or meeting quality or safety standards. Prop. 12 does not prevent out-of-state pork producers from making products that do not conform to the law, so long as they sell the pork outside of California, state officials argue.


Loading...

8
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
commonsenseguy

We have family that raise them for all of us. Not worried about losing that great ham, bacon off sausage. Nothing better than home grown beef, hog, or chicken. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.


kevin rise

Unusual suspect makes good points. I avoid this BS by buying locally sourced, seasonal organic small farm produce, and locally ethically raised meat. These laws seem to be targeting crappy industrial businesses that serve “slop”. Sadly poor communities only have access to “slop”. Your dollar is your vote and is your 2 cents. Make it count. We have J and R butcher locally, local fish markets, local seasonal produce. It’s rich people who make this crap and screw the poor and start wars and ruin earth, and they’re the only ones being punished. Not our local ethical 4h, FFA. We need to boycott any unethical business. Like McDonald’s, Nike, Burger King, Taco Bell, Disney Foods, Dole of Hawaii, The Cokain Brothers, Donald Dump steaks, The Resnicks, etc. Think local, and fair trade global economics. As everyone has something to share. And China is a shit show, but to say that is throwing a stone in a glass house, as we sold our soul to China by giving up intellectual property for cheap labor, and they stole it, rightfully so. No one here on this forum is a billionaire, and if they are and comment, they are the incarnate of the devil or a Troll spy. Don’t be lazy or cheap if you have privalege. Cancer is real. And petrochemicals cause it, and PFAS, domino’s pizza box anyone? May cause cancer in CA labels? Atascadero has cancerous water so does Paso and SLO. Google it, PFAS SLO county.


skidmark

How about they label the pork products like they do with organically grown food and let the people decide what they want to purchase?


JCILOALL

Mmmmm, Bacon!


unusualsuspect

Virtue signalling or just straight up blackmail?!? “Be like us or get out”. Truly getting harder and harder to defend this state :/


cleo

It IS a virtue to care about animals that give their lives to feed us. What exactly is wrong with that? The least we can do is give them a decent life even if it costs a little more


unusualsuspect

My comment was not addressing that facet of the issue. I do think animals should have reasonable living conditions. But for our state to attempt to enforce our rules on out of state production and deny their product is just ridiculous. Sure are a lot of things “made in china” but we don’t ban them do we? ( China has an at best abusive HUMAN rights record, let alone animal rights )


NorthCountyGuy

This is a sad result of money politics. The state govenment of California has been hijacked by campaign contributions from the Animal Rights extremists of HSUS. Prop 12 is a sneaky way of banning birthing pens. Responsible farmers use birthing pens. Birthing pens prevent sows from killing their piglets.