Case Analysis – National Pork Producers Council vs Ross 2023-1

Case Analysis – National Pork Producers Council vs Ross 2023-1

FACTS: In 2018, California Proposition 12 was approved by the voters, leading to a state statute that established the minimum dimensions of confinement requirements for breeding female pigs, veal calves, and chickens. The proposition focused on banning the sale of whole pork meat, veal, and eggs in California if the animals were confined to spaces below the minimum confinement requirements. The proposition also banned the sale of whole pork meat from the offspring of a confined pig and required sows to have 24 square feet of usable floor space for every animal. The petitioners acknowledged that 28% of the industry had been converted to a type of group housing for pregnant pigs to meet customer demand and observe the state laws regulating how animals should be treated (National Pork Producers Council v. Ross 2023-1). The petitioners expressed concerns about whether farmers would be willing to modify their practices to comply with the new proposition because they would need extra capital investment. For instance, the petitioners stated that complying with Proposition 12 would cost farmers an extra 9.2%, which would be transferred to out-of-state and California meat producers. Judge Thomas Whelan dismissed the case on 27^th April 2020 after ruling that Proposition 12 did not focus on commerce across states and did not require identical practices across the United States. An appeal was forwarded to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the order made by the district court on 28^th July 2021. It was concluded that the petitioners repeatedly failed to persuade Congress to use the authority of the express Commerce Clause to adopt a uniform rule governing pork production.

ISSUE: The main issue was whether the conditions imposed by Proposition 12 on pork producers in the United States were constitutional. One of the areas of concern was whether the allegations that state law has a significant economic impact outside California and required pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The second concern was whether the extraterritoriality principle would justify the court’s order. Consistently, were the allegations about state law solely based on preferences about out-of-state housing of animals kept on farms? Opponents, however, argued that current farming practices were good at protecting farm animals’ welfare and ensuring consumer protection by preventing contamination.

ANSWER: YES

REASONING: The ruling suggested that states are not interested in protecting public welfare and health and that the state’s interference may impact how animals are treated outside California. Although the Constitution outlines specific conduct that state laws cannot override, the new regulations imposed by Proposition 12 were outside the behavior recommended in the Constitution. Proposition 12 would enhance the effectiveness of existing regulations on animal storage and the protection of customer welfare. It made it clear to all meat producers in California that they should not lock their farm animals in tight cages for a specific period because that would be cruel and may compromise the safety of the meat sold to consumers. However, the consumers would have to pay more for pork and other pork products because Proposition 12 increased the cost of keeping farm animals. There was also a risk of reduced egg supply because of the increase in production cost. Despite these negative impacts of the proposition, it was ideal to ensure that consumers’ health was protected and prevent animal cruelty based on the behavior proposed by the Humane Society of the United States.

 References

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (Supreme Court of the United States).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

So, to be clear, your case brief should have the names of the parties and a case citation [ like 340 S.Ct. 49 (2020) ] and then 4 sections: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS TO COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT.

FACTS
ISSUE
ANSWER
REASONING