Nat'l Pork Producers Council v. Ross

Nat'l Pork Producers Council v. Ross

Opinion

Justice Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Parts IV-B, IV-C, and IV-D.

What goods belong in our stores? Usually, consumer demand and local laws supply some of the answer. Recently, California adopted just such a law banning the in-state sale of certain pork products derived from breeding pigs confined in stalls so small they cannot lie down, stand up, or turn around. In response, two groups of out-of-state pork producers filed this lawsuit, arguing that the law unconstitutionally interferes with their preferred way of doing business in violation of this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause precedents. [*13]  Both the district court and court of appeals dismissed the producers’ complaint for failing to state a claim.

We affirm. Companies that choose to sell products in various States must normally comply with the laws of those various States. ] Assuredly, under this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause decisions, no State may use its laws to discriminate purposefully against out-of-state economic interests. But the pork producers do not suggest that California’s law offends this principle. Instead, they invite us to fashion two new and more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders. We decline that invitation. While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.

Modern American grocery stores offer a dizzying array of choice. Often, consumers may choose among eggs that are large, medium, or small; eggs that are white, brown, or some other color; eggs from cage-free chickens or ones raised consistent with organic farming standards. When it comes to meat and fish, the options are no less plentiful. Products may be marketed as free range, wild caught, or graded by quality (prime, [*14]  choice, select, and beyond). The pork products at issue here, too, sometimes come with “antibiotic-free” and “crate-free” labels. USDA, Report to Congress: Livestock Mandatory Reporting 18 (2018), https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/LMR2018ReporttoCongress.pdf. Much of this product differentiation reflects consumer demand, informed by individual taste, health, or moral considerations.

Informed by similar concerns, States (and their predecessors) have long enacted laws aimed at protecting animal welfare. As far back as 1641, the Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited “Tirranny or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature.” Body of Liberties §92, in A Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony 52-53 (1890). Today, Massachusetts prohibits the sale of pork products from breeding pigs (or their offspring) if the breeding pig has been confined “in a manner that prevents [it] from lying down, standing up, fully extending [its] limbs or turning around freely.” Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 129, App. §§1-3, 1-5 (***. Supp. 2023). Nor is that State alone. Florida’s Constitution prohibits “any person [from] confin[ing] a pig during pregnancy . . . in such a way that she is prevented from turning around freely.” Art. X, §21(a). Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, and Rhode Island, too, have laws regulating animal confinement practices within [*15]  their borders. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-2910.07(A) (2018); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 7, §§4020(1)-(2) (2018); Mich. Comp. Laws §287.746(2) (West ***. Supp. 2022); Ore. Rev. Stat. §§600.150(1)-(2) (2021); R. I. Gen. Laws §4-1.1-3 (Supp. 2022).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.