Supreme Court sides with California on animal welfare law that could have impact beyond bacon

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with California in a dispute over an animal-welfare law that imposed requirements on the sale of bacon, chops and other pork products but that Midwestern pig farmers said would upend their industry and make it easier for states to regulate conduct outside of their borders.

At a moment when conservative and liberal states are enacting opposite policies dealing with labor, the environment and other issues, the decision may have an impact that reaches far beyond breakfast meat.

At issue is a 2018 ballot initiative, Proposition 12, that bans the sale of pork products in California unless the sow from which the butchered pig was born was housed in at least 24 square feet of floor space. Meeting that standard, the industry has said, would require wholesale changes to farms in Iowa, Minnesota and other states.

But a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court that included both liberal and conservative justices balked at the sweeping arguments the pork industry presented.

"Companies that choose to sell products in various states must normally comply with the 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."

Abortion: How a Supreme Court case about pig farms could muddy abortion debate

Argument: Supreme Court majority questions California law on pig pens, pork products

Why did Roberts dissent in California pork decision?

Gorsuch wrote that the law treated California and out-of-state pork farmers equally, and so it wasn't a protectionist law intended to benefit local farmers. He rejected the argument that the lower courts should have weighed the benefit to California against the potential cost to other states.

Both sides agreed that very little pork is produced in California.

Gorsuch was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett for the thrust of the opinion and the outcome, which affirmed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit siding with California.

But Chief Justice John Roberts said the farmers had "plausibly alleged a substantial burden against interstate commerce" and would have sent the case back to the appeals court for further review. Specifically, Roberts wrote that lower courts should have weighed the potential costs on the pig farmers against the potential benefit for California.

What's the potential impact beyond pork?

At a time when conservative and liberal states are adopting different laws over 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.

More: Report on leak of draft opinion overturning Roe draws criticism from all sides

The case is National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.

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 dismissed the farmers' lawsuit, asserting that while the dormant commerce clause is not yet dead, "it is moving in that direction."

Gorsuch characterized the pig farmers as attempting to expand the scope of the dormant commerce clause. Instead, Gorsuch wrote in a section of the opinion joined by two other justices, if farmers are looking for a national standard on how to raise pigs, they should turn to Congress instead of the courts.

"It is hard not to wonder whether petitioners have ventured here only because winning a majority of a handful of judges may seem easier than marshaling a majority of elected representatives across the street," he wrote.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court decision on California law deals blow to pig farmers