National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

California’s voters passed Proposition 12, a law that banned the in-state sale of certain pork products derived from breeding pigs confined to “cruel,” small stalls. A handful of other states had similar laws in place. California was interested in the humane treatment of breeding pigs and wanted the pigs to have sufficient space to lie down, stand up, and freely turn around. California imported most, but not all, of its pork products from out-of-state producers. Two organizations representing pork producers (collectively, the council) (plaintiffs) sued specified California officials (defendants), claiming that Proposition 12 impermissibly burdened interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The council conceded that California had no intent to economically discriminate against out-of-state pork producers or protect in-state producers, which were equally required to comply with the new law. However, the council alleged that Proposition 12 disproportionately affected the economic interests of out-of-state producers. Although 28 percent of the pork industry had already converted to compliant “group housing” for pregnant pigs, the industry’s costs of complying with Proposition 12 would increase and have sweeping effects. California’s market for pork was large, and complying with Proposition 12 would require industry-wide changes. The district court held that the council’s complaint failed to state a claim as a matter of law and dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.