Representational image. Wikimedia Commons
The Supreme Court of the US on Tuesday questioned whether upholding a 2018 California law that bans the sale of pork from pigs kept in tightly confined spaces would invite other states to adopt similar laws which would in turn restrict the movement of pork products moving nationwide.
The US Supreme Court heard an appeal made by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The pork industry has accused the state of California of restricting interstate commerce and trying to impose its values on other US states.
Let’s take a closer look at what the law says and what concerns the Supreme Court has.
What is Proposition 12?
Proposition 12 is a 2018 ballot measure that was approved by more than 60 per cent of California’s voters.
The law prohibits the confinement of calves raised for veal, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens in areas below a specified number of square feet. According to a report by New York Times, it also forbids the sale of pork in California unless they are housed in spaces bigger than the minimum square-feet requirements.
In 2020, Proposition 12 banned the confinement of calves in areas with less than 43 square feet of usable floor per calf as well as the confinement of egg-laying hens in areas with less than one square foot of usable floor.
This year the law extended the ban on the confinement of breeding pigs and their offspring in areas with less than 24 square feet of usable floor space per pig.
Two organisations, the Humane Society and Prevent Cruelty California led the campaign in support of Proposition 12.
Among those who opposed the law are the Association of California Egg Farmers and National Pork Producers Council. These organisations argued that the changes would increase food prices and create meat and egg shortages in the market.
What are anti-ban proponents saying?
Justices in the Supreme Court are now sceptical about the constitutionality of the law. According to a report by Reuters, Justices, regardless of their ideological spectrum are concerned that a ruling in California’s favour might encourage more states to adopt such laws.
Timothy Bishop, a lawyer siding with trade groups and pork producers said the law effectively imposed a nationwide regulation.
He said, “California wants to change farming methods everywhere.”
National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation argue that since California imports most of its pork, Proposition 12 would overhaul its practices to cater to Californians, according to a report by The Guardian.
Justice Bishop added that the law would affect states like Iowa that have over 65,000 sow farms. He said, “What California is doing is essentially trampling on Iowa’s ability to breed those sows.”
Defenders facing difficult questions in court
According a report by NPR, state Solicitor General Michael Mongan, who defends California’s law found themselves in a difficult position as they were being asked questions about the constitutionality and morality of the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted a problem with morality-based regulations. “I think people in some states … that produce a lot of pork, in Iowa or North Carolina or Indiana, may think there’s a moral value in providing a low-cost source of protein to people, maybe, particularly at times of rising food prices,” he said.
Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito accused California of bullying other states with the law for since it has a big role in the market. He said, “Is California unconcerned about all this because it is such a giant? … You can bully other states, and so you’re not really concerned about retaliation?”
These questions left both conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and liberal Justice Elena Kagan wondering about the far-reaching impacts of the law.
With inputs from agencies