Supreme Court rejects Urbandale-based group's challenge to California pork law

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an Iowa-based farm group's challenge to a California animal-cruelty law imposing requirements on the sale of pork products that Midwestern pig farmers said would upend their industry.

The impact of the decision in the case brought by the National Pork Producers Council, headquartered in Urbandale, and the American Farm Bureau Federation could reach far beyond breakfast meat.

At issue is a 2018 ballot initiative known as Proposition 12 that bans the sale of pork in California unless the sow from which the butchered pig was born was housed in a pen with at least 24 square feet of floor space.

Previously: 'War on breakfast': Will California proposition improve care of pigs, or just raise ham and bacon prices?

Tight pens that prevent the animals from turning around are the industry standard. Proponents of the law contend the pens are inhumane and encourage crowding that can lead to disease transmission. Pork producers say the pens are intended to prevent sows from unintentionally crushing their piglets.

California is the nation's most-populous state, and the producers say that the way the pork market works, with cuts of meat from various sources being combined before sale, it is likely all pork will have to meet California standards, regardless of where it is sold.

Complying with Proposition 12 could cost the $26 billion-a-year industry $290 million to $350 million, they say.

But a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court that included both liberal and conservative justices rejected their arguments.

"Companies that choose to sell products in various states must normally comply with laws of those various states," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. "While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list."

The court affirmed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which sided with California.

Gorsuch noted that the California law didn't apply a different standard to out-of-state pork farmers and instead treated local pork producers equally ― though California's pork industry accounts for just 0.1% of the national supply, while the state's residents consume 13% of it, meaning it is heavily dependent on states such as Iowa, the nation's leading pork producer.

Gorsuch was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett for the thrust of the opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the farmers had "plausibly alleged a substantial burden on interstate commerce," and he would have sent the case back to the appeals court for further review.

Pork decision has wide implications

At a time when conservative and liberal states are adopting widely varied laws concerning education, labor and abortion, the case posed questions about when and whether such laws may reach beyond one state's borders.

Could a liberal state, for instance, prohibit the sale of products unless they were manufactured with union labor? Could a conservative state demand proof that those products weren't made by immigrants in the country illegally?

During more than two hours of oral argument in October, the justices wrestled with those concerns.

Arriving months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that had established a constitutional right to abortion, the pork case took on added significance this term. Some speculated the court's decision would send a signal about whether a conservative state that bans abortion could prohibit its residents from traveling to a liberal state to obtain the procedure.

The deeper legal debate in the case centered on what's known as the dormant commerce clause, which generally bars states from passing laws that burden interstate commerce. If Congress has not passed a law affecting interstate commerce, the assumption under the doctrine is that lawmakers intended an open market without state regulation.

But there are questions about how much support that doctrine still has. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had dismissed the farmers' lawsuit, asserting that while the dormant commerce clause is not yet dead, "it is moving in that direction."

Pork producers predict some will go out of business

The immediate effect of the ruling is unclear. California voters approved Proposition 12 in 2018, but implementation of the law has been on hold amid the litigation and as state officials work on the complex regulations needed to enforce it.

"We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court's opinion. Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation," National Pork Producers Council President Scott Hays said in a statement. "We are still evaluating the court's full opinion to understand all the implications."

Trish Cook, president of the Clive-based Iowa Pork Producers Association, predicted some farmers won't be able to make the changes the law would require.

"Some small and medium-sized producers who are already dealing with high feed costs and inflation, will also sadly go out of business as they struggle to comply,” Cook said in a statement.

Iowa Republican U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, a member of the agriculture committee, roundly denounced the ruling, tweeting, "Extremists in liberal states like California shouldn't be able to BAN OUR BACON and punish hardworking Iowa pork producers with overreaching policies."

Her fellow Republican senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley, a member of the judiciary committee, used the news to tweet a swipe at the other side of the aisle.

"While I disagree with the SCOTUS decision upholding Californias pork rules, I'm not going to attack the court, threaten its justices or undermine its credibility," he wrote. "I wish my Dem colleagues would do the same."

Iowa Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig expressed concern about other changes the ruling could set in motion.

"This disappointing decision sets a concerning precedent and opens the door for the largest states to dictate the laws and regulations for consumers and businesses to the rest of America," he said in a statement. "This sets the stage for a state-by-state patchwork of ever-changing and costly requirements that will increase the cost of production and drive higher costs for food and other consumer products.”

One meat company calls ruling 'watershed moment for animal welfare'

On the other side was at least one pork-producing company, Niman Ranch.

“This is a truly watershed moment for animal welfare. Since day one, Niman Ranch has been one of the only companies to ban the use of crates for raising hogs and today our more than 500 independent family farmer partners proudly raise their pigs 100% crate free," the company said in a statement. "We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision and this historic moment for humane animal care.”

Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy, led by Wayne Pacelle, one of the originators of Proposition 12, also praised the decision.

“Today’s landmark ruling affirms the right of states to institute policies to promote anti-cruelty and food safety standards,”  Pacelle said in a statement. “The pork industry has for decades blocked any rules at the federal level to promote the humane treatment of farm animals, and this was their attempt to gut state rules, too. It is a loss for hog factory farmers and a win for the vast majority of Americans who want to know that animals raised for food were not immobilized and otherwise tormented in production.”

George Kimbrell, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, hailed it as a "major victory" in the quest for more healthful food.

"The Supreme Court rejected industrial agriculture’s far-reaching efforts to curtail states’ rights to enact laws governing farming to prevent animal cruelty and to protect the public health," Kimbrell said in a statement. "Instead the court properly recognized the value and benefits of such laws. Intensive confinement of pigs poses a profound danger to food safety and the public health such as foodborne illness and disease and pathogen transmission, and important laws like Prop 12 mitigate those risks.”

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa-based pork council loses Supreme Court challenge to California law