Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, writing a majority in what amounted to a 5-4 decision, dismissed what he called the pork producers’ request for the court to develop “new and more aggressive constitutional limits on the ability of states to regulate what they sell.” within them.”

“Despite the fact that the Constitution decides many important issues, the type of pork chops that California merchants can sell is not on this list,” Gorsuch wrote to the majority, which sometimes included Judges Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett.

Supreme Court Cases: We’re Tracking Major Decisions in 2023

He wrote that pork producers should apply to Congress for an exemption from state laws they don’t like. He then added that “Despite the persistent efforts of some pork producers, Congress has yet to pass any legislation that could replace Proposition 12, or laws to regulate pork production in other states.”

Four members of the court – Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr. and Judges Samuel A. Alito Jr., Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson—argued to leave the challenge to the law and send it back to the lower court for more work.

Roberts said that due to the size of the California market, pork producers will have no choice but to comply with California regulations, which Gorsuch says prohibit breeding pigs from being kept in “stands so small they can’t lie down, stand up or turn around.” . The rules could increase costs by more than 9 percent, writes Roberts, for what is described as a $20 billion industry.

“California has enacted rules that have consequences for manufacturers located even in Indiana and North Carolina, whether they sell goods in California or not,” the Chief Justice wrote, adding that in the past the court held such “wide-ranging extraterritorial implications … are appropriate.”

It is undeniable that the states can regulate the cultivation of pork within their borders. But Proposition 12, passed by nearly 63 percent of Californians in 2018, goes beyond that parameter by banning the sale of products derived from sows that are not allowed to be at least 24 square feet—regardless of where the sows are raised. California grows little pork but consumes about 13 percent of the nation’s total pork.

The referendum was contested by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Federation of Farm Bureaus, and received support from business groups concerned about the state’s ability to regulate outside its borders.

“This Supreme Court decision will not only affect every small family farm in the country, but it will also change the standard for how state governments can impose a regulatory burden on businesses and consumers outside of this state,” said Beth Milito, chief executive. Small Business Law Center of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). “Proposition 12 will have a stunning impact on pork producers, consumers and interstate commerce in general. Today’s decision sets a dangerous precedent, and small businesses will bear the consequences.”

But Gorsuch said the Constitution’s trade statute prohibits discriminatory practices by states to protect their businesses and burden others, and even pork producers, California law claims, don’t do that. In a letter to two other judges, Gorsuch said courts should not decide how to balance moral and medical advantages of the inhabitants of the state in comparison with the costs of producers.

“In a functioning democracy, such political choices usually belong to the people and their elected representatives,” he wrote.

Sotomayor and Kagan were not prepared to accept that the court’s role was so limited that it was tantamount to abandoning the test the court had used in the past. But Sotomayor wrote that “the claim of a substantial burden on interstate commerce is a threshold requirement that plaintiffs must meet” and concluded that the pork producers did not.

Kavanaugh wrote that this meant that the six judges were still in favor of such balancing tests despite Gorsuch’s objection. His own view, Kavanaugh wrote, is that “California’s required changes to pig farming and pork production throughout the United States will cost American farmers and pork producers hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars. And these costs to pig farmers and pork producers will in many cases be passed on to American pork consumers as a result of rising pork prices across the country.”

California claimed that its residents agreed to pay higher prices so as not to create a market for products they considered morally unacceptable and potentially unsafe. Proponents of the ban said state residents have the right to do so, while acknowledging that it could mean nationwide change.

“This decision should be the final nail in the coffin of one of the most brutal and controversial forms of animal cruelty ever committed against animals,” said Josh Balk, one of the referendum leaders.

Kitty Block, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, said her organization is “delighted that the Supreme Court upheld California Proposition 12—the nation’s strictest farm animal welfare law—and made it clear that preventing Animal cruelty and public health protection is a primary function of our state governments… It’s amazing that pig industry leaders spend so much time and money fighting this common sense to prevent California’s relentless, unbearable animal suffering products from being sold.”

Gorsuch noted that even pork producers have acknowledged that practices are changing. “In response to consumer demand and other state laws, 28% of their industry has already transitioned to some form of group housing for pregnant pigs,” he wrote.

The thing is National pork producers vs. Horse.