National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

The Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit's decision and rejected the pork producers' challenge to California's Proposition 12. The Court concluded that the producers' arguments did not show the law violated the dormant Commerce Clause (an implied limit on state laws that burden interstate trade).

The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit. Justice Gorsuch delivered the Court's opinion except for Parts IV-B, IV-C, and IV-D.

Majority

Gorsuch

Thomas

Sotomayor

Kagan

Barrett

Dissent

Roberts

Alito

Kavanaugh

Jackson

“The Court rejected petitioners' theories that would place Proposition 12 in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause even though petitioners did not allege the law purposefully discriminates against out-of-state economic interests.”

Pork producers and sellers who want to sell pork in California must meet Proposition 12's confinement standards. For example, an out-of-state producer may need to change its sourcing or animal-housing practices for pork sold in California.

California can continue to enforce Proposition 12. Producers and retailers selling pork in California must account for the law's confinement standards in their supply chains.

The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and rejected the producers' dormant Commerce Clause challenge to California's Proposition 12.

Pork producers, suppliers, and retailers selling pork in California are affected. They must meet California's confinement standards for pork sold there.

California may continue enforcing Proposition 12. Businesses selling pork in California must adjust their operations or sourcing to comply with its standards.