The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case that perhaps even more so than the controversial Mississippi-based Dobbs abortion ruling frames and defines the fractured state of public policy and politics in the U.S. between liberal and conservative camps.
The case was ostensibly about whether California in 2018’s Proposition 12 had the right to mandate the production methods used on farms in other states whose products are sold and consumed there. California voters cast their votes solidly in favor of what they view as basic animal rights and more humane conditions by mandating bigger cages for certain farm animals, including breeding pigs, veal calves and laying hens.
Massachusetts adopted similar legislation in 2016, but the law has remained unenforced pending the outcome of the high court’s review of the California case. But the legislation has drawn even more attention since the inflationary spiral after the Covid-19 pandemic drove food prices up over 10 percent.
Opponents of the legislation predict that the California and Massachusetts laws will increase pork, egg and veal prices even higher and that they may cause product shortages in those states as well. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross is the case filed after voters in California adopted Proposition 12 that finally reached the oral argument stage last week.
During those arguments, the justices of the highest court in the land heard impassioned arguments over what appears at face value to be animal rights, but on deeper review is truly about whether the voters of some states can impose their will and values on the citizens of other states in agriculture and commerce.
Abortion rights have divided the country for more than a half-century. The Dobbs decision overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that has in those 50 years most sharply divided the country between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans – as well as more broad divisions between men and women. The abortion battle has long defined federal judicial nominations and confirmations.
While animal rights were the focus of the arguments before the court, liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan appreciated the possible scope of the decision the high court is contemplating. She said: “We live in a divided country. And the Balkanization that the framers were concerned about is surely present today.”
Later in the arguments, Kagan asked: “Do we want to live in a world where we’re constantly at each other's throats and, you know, Texas is at war with California and California at war with Texas?” Conservative Justice Brent Kavanaugh tracked those same concerns, asking: “What about a law that says you can’t sell fruit in our state if it’s produced — handled by people who are not in the country legally? Is that state law permissible?”
Legal analyst Amy Howe defined the NPCC legal challenge succinctly: “They argued that Proposition 12 violates what is known as the ‘dormant commerce clause’– the theory that, even if the Constitution does not explicitly say anything about state law, the Constitution’s grant of power over interstate commerce to Congress also means that states cannot pass laws that discriminate against interstate commerce.”
At face value, the stakes in the case are high for both sides. Humane Society of the U.S. CEO Kitty Block said shortly after oral arguments: “Today our counsel made a clear case to the Supreme Court on why states have the right to keep immoral and unsafe products out of their markets, including pork from cruelly confined pigs. As we await the Court’s decision, we applaud the many retailers and major pork producers who are already meeting consumers’ increasing demand for safer, more humane pork.”
The National Pork Producers Council said: “As we’ve contended since 2018, one state should not be able to regulate commerce in another state and set arbitrary standards that lack any scientific, technical, or agricultural basis. NPPC presented a strong case and is confident in its arguments presented to the Supreme Court justices.”
The principle at issue is far more thorny than mere animal rights The outcome of the case has the potential for states and regions of the country – already sharply politically divided over Congressional representation and partisan choices in presidential campaigns – to shift into legislating their differences in the courts on issues as diverse as gun control, abortion and other politically radioactive issues rather than in Congress.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com
15 comments:
"This little pig had privileges...this little pig had none." Adequate labeling can permit grocery customers to make informed decisions for themselves. EG, I avoid nitrites, nitrates and prefer pork treated with celery extract and choose "uncured".
Of course in CA, the label will have to mimic a nursery rhyme to be read.
Then let them eat soy. Preferably grown in the Mississippi Delta.
I’m more concerned with CCP ownership of our meat packers, than I am concerned whether the degenerates in California want humane slaughtering of swine. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that the Proposition is a ploy to make more hog carcasses available for export to the PRC.
A state should have the right to decide what is best for their state. They are not saying every other state has to do the same thing. Other states also have the right to make that decision. They have decided they do not want to buy a product that is handled the way they do not like. Sounds reasonable to me. What is the problem?
@10:33am
It is more conforming to the Constitution to give purchasing authority to private wholesalers, retailers and end-purchaser-customers. Statist-bot-fascist-bureaucrats of CA should not interfere with Interstate commerce.
Should MS determine that CA avocado 'imports' be outlawed if CA refuses to permit MS catfish into the their state because of a difference of opinion about abortion, gender pronouns or climate cult?
All pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others.
@10:33, they are trying to use their purchasing power to regulate alleged harms in other states. If they were trying to prohibit say, certain pesticides that they believe harm the consumer because of residue, that would I think be fine. But since it is not trying to protect their consumer but solely prevent a harm to animals in other states, it's much more questionable.
If California were attempting to ban pork products from states that don't adopt similarly stringent regulations, the would be clearly constitutional. Does banning products from individual producers that can't show they comply with California regulations change the result? I'm not sure. It's a very bad idea and bad precedent, but being bad policy doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Kagan's question mentioned in Salter's column may portend anti-balkanization of trade between states, so I anticipate a fair decision that uphols Interstate Commerce Clause.
EG: Recent baseball decision against Atlanta was petty and unfounded. Georgia's voting opportunities were actually expanded but biased baseball bureaucrats acted hatefully anyway, without cause, which hurt many vendors and businesses in Atlanta.
I want to pay a fair, competitive price for Alaska salmon and Maine lobster and want Maine and Alaska to pay a fair, competitive price for MS Gulf Shrimp. If petty squabbles between bureaucrats disrupt trade between states, "The People" lose as producers and as consumers and National GDP will suffer.
@10:33am
As the article alludes to, this gets to be tricky because some states might ban such things as:
Crops harvested by not-documented workers.
Crops grown in areas that don't use XYZ chemicals because they might have higher chance of some disease or pest infection.
Crops grown on former slave-holding land.
Crops harvested by workers not making a living wage.
Crops grown west of "this arbitrary line" because of some pest or pathogen or whatever.
How can interstate commerce exist in this type of environment?
This shouldn't be so hard.
Interstate commerce is critical. There are national laws governing interstate commerce.
Obey the law and no problem.
Don't like the law, get your representative to write a bill changing the law.
Or you can keep electing those too dumb or crazy to actually do anything worthwhile for a State and guarantee the system doesn't work.
KF...look at the Stennis building from federal dollars that has set empty and guarded for decades.
Lot of bitching about this but you already can't buy a major appliance in this country that doesn't fit California's laws. We (Ms) honestly have more in common with many foreign countries than we do the screwballs in Cali now.
@2:19pm - California is regulating how appliances have to perform in their state. They are not regulating how energy efficient the factories must be nor what kind of energy the factories have to use. They are effectively regulating how much energy (or water) appliances sold and utilized in their states can use. The policy is still bad, but they are at least regulating within their borders, even if it has pernicious affects outside of its borders.
Now they are explicitly trying to regulate activity outside their borders even when there is no impact within their borders. That's a pretty significant step towards down the road to having interstate trade wars.
11:57 AM, Maybe it would be better if other states did ban crops harvested by illegals. We might not have so many millions of them here. As far as workers not being paid a living wage, that is why the illegals are here.
States should be able to make laws concerning their own state. Why let other states tell them how to run their own state. We already have too many politicians telling us what we can and can't do. What if some other state decided they don't like the drug laws in Ms. and tell Ms. to change their laws?
CA licks toad bellies, throws diaper.burritos out of car windows, welcomes fentanyl mules and pays drag queens to groom little children. Let's disallow Califoreiners to cross any Red State border, physically or digitally.
I have family in that state but have refused to travel there for 40 years.
This page is full of wannabees who crave the opportunity to resonate and be heard. Where the hell is Rush Limbaugh when we really need him?
And what if Mississippi prohibits the trucking, into this state, of refrigerated lettuce unless California can offer proof that all field-hands cutting, rinsing, boxing and stacking lettuce containers into KLLM trailers have washed their hands after defecating and micturating in the fields?
Post a Comment