manufacturers are encouraged to produce goods for goods by the certainty that they will be they won't have free access for them in every state the sales ban improvisation twelve violates the constitution by causing all the california market to imports and hopes the oh i'm cork a must out of state farmers and producers reconstruct their barns and end their operations outside of california to satisfy what confinement standards dictated by turnaround standard as applied to out of state farmers in say farmers were given six years to come into compliance with the out of the turn around standard out of state farmers it doesn't say  california i didn't see anything saying that there was a delayed effective date or anything like that is there some sort of delayed effective date and if so where would the ep if and there's nothing in the text of the statute in that distinguishes proposition twelve from proposition two which on the on the face of the statute given state or six years to come into compliance so there's nothing in the statute there was debate back and forth whether or not the turnaround standard was immediately in effect and there are just reporting dresses that in and are opinion and so i was silent as to that question and so presumably the regulations would address that one way or the other the other way but the regulations would be relevant is there are some questions of the statute or subject to exceptions and further analysis so you know near the end of the proposition twelve there is a section where exceptions for mary care and things like that and those might be relevant to whether or not certain that marry care or in this case are the breeding sounds with regard to question about the turnaround standard and setting aside the question about what regulations might come in we think that we think that it's discriminatory and it's discriminatory because what it does is it takes away an advantage that out of i think with regard to you know the obligation for confinement it would be the same obligation it would be a level in effect and that's where discrimination argument with regard to the fact that you know poses a leveling effect in the same way  effects california farmers the same way has outstate farmers in the sense of both groups of farmers are banned from sales in less their product was raised the same way isn't that correct that's protection protecting this measure is coming and i think that the the california farmers are compelled to eat a certain standard the as if our minds are not but it hard to even the level the playing field if i understand your argument correctly in order to level the playing field the california law down requires as farmers to be california's operational standards that's exactly right and that's that's exactly what that was exactly the circumstance  baldwin in which new york passed the statute saying if you want to import milk into new york you have to pay your farmers the minimum charge that we also required new york arms to so there was the same up but what it did was it neutralize advantages that were associated with the origin of the out of staters are not subject to the confinement of under section three area they have their own regulations so wanted the meat that they were going to buy to consume in california so not have the animals who are going to be subject to that ultimate consumption to be held in a cruel manner and so they made it uniform anybody who sells how this kind of me in california house to confine the atom was in a way that the voters of the state deemed was not cruel why is that not only did it reason and how is that protection if everybody who sells me here has to comply to the same standard well it's it's it's not legitimate because what it does is it inconsistent with a national market that the colors are also guaranteed you're saying it's not legitimate because you don't want to do it but the supreme court has said that it's a legitimate reason for people to be concerned about animal cruelty and at least one of the reasons that californians voted for prop twelve was they didn't discretion standard of the denial of the junction how did the district judge abuse her discretion by not accepting that that was the rationale for the proposition that it would be equally apply to all parties selling me in california and it with facially nondiscriminatory and it was a protection so you know under the state of california certainly can dictate animal welfare standards for animals in california in the same way the state of california indicates what you know employment standards are what the middle most the minimum wages for employees in california what they can't do and what the supreme court has said they can't do they to control conduct outside of the state now when you can't regulate the treatment of animals with end stage but it's not it's not equal to it's not as doesn't have the authority to regulate how animals are confined outside of  borders in the same way that california can say look if you want to sell products and go for every product has to be produced by somebody who's making california minimum wage otherwise it would be california can't do that and the reason they can't do that one is it takes the advantage away from the out of staters whether or not subject to those standards when they produce i don't know if the states justification i have a question why is it there was something about disease they argued before the district court and it's not something that's before here and you know we presented evidence before the district court that this what there is an animal safety issue here and you know there that set forth in the declaration of  bell but for purposes of this proceeding it's just they have not raised that issue so it's not part of the case they haven't you know really our position as if they had a big cannot create a trade barrier as to wholesome pork in field which is what we're trying to do we're trying to sell wholesome pork and veal what they're saying is you have to reconfigure all your operations to do it to meet the dick it's a california applies to its own farmers purposes of discrimination the only issue that was decided in the harris case i'll call it was the especial discrimination and the case didn't present a discriminatory effect case which is what we have here because the only flaw crop produce from california supreme court's decision and pharmaceutical research the way has repeatedly held that the uniform regulation of sales is constitutional even if such regulation as upstream affects the circuits cases rejecting really kind of turns on the dormant congress here and it's a it's a legal issue and i'm just saying this hypothetically cuz we have a conference on this and i don't know what the court's going to do but if we were to find that nominees complaint race a serious question can ate issue is you're saying you don't need to worry about that could you st articulate well it's a legitimate in state issue is before you get to i don't have to worry about it sure yes so to the extent that we're talking about the extraterritor states even where the characteristics of the product of market are not at issue here california is permitted to promote animal welfare within the states by preventing the states was sitting in practices that have been means little animal ok so you are saying it's an animal welfare interest as judge and she was mentioning that the people of california candace i say at animals are not contained in a cruel manner  yes and so i again just returned back to the point i was st making this is not this is not and this court indicated pharmaceutical research to be county of alameda cautioned against conflating this negative congress caught as proof that would prevail and that sort of law from being enacted and enforced in california is that your position if it is that narrow that it's focused on in state sales only and but there are also laws that at the supreme court has upheld like exxon for example that law uniquely burdens certain out of state producers that civically petroleum refiners and yet the supreme court held   recognized that in cases like ill of were two decades earlier it recognized that in pacific northwest medicine producers the snitch even a complete ban on certain items is not discriminatory as long as it's not fueled by economic protectionism and does not benefit in state interests to the exclusion of out of state interest and all the evidence is can i also ask you  that different places have don't have some standards that they have to comply with so if we walk and national standard that would have to be something congress would do correct  why should california be able to set the standard for everyone in the whole united states because it satisfies california's moral compass  and so no one else can sell in california if you don't if you don't if you know if you don't buy into that but two points and this goes to that important principle at stake here which is that in a federal system each state must be permitted to exercise its sovereign powers to regulate the products within its market and so the two points one is the minutes and two is not making any allegations that this is one of repeatedly rejected the argument made here in rocky mountain one for example is working but there is your that's better let me ask you this but your case let's just say it that didn't cost more money to treat animals the way california  animals to be treated so when your case be better a better case if it wasn't i mean essentially it cost people more money to comply california so other people can do it for l and if if that weren't there wouldn't your wouldn't be wouldn't your case be better i mean here or there is a equalizing of the playing field here because california has and are able to compete in their own market the people of california have the term and that certain confinement methods constitute cruelty to animals and based on that sentiment adopted proposition twelve it is a hallmark of our federalism that the citizens of each state get to make those decisions remember agree with your co counsel they have a similar analysis would apply if california said no sales of products in california if the products are manufactured in companies in age setting and also to an economic issue if you notice in the briefs almost every case that the plaintiffs raise goes to an economic issue and economic outsourcing putting some prejudice o interest for economics not one of their cases represents a case in which welfare issues a law based on welfare is actually struck down the commerce clause so is it is a minimum wage in your view not a we it would depend on what the state of california argued it was benefiting from by setting a minimum wage standards so that so the people in california don't want to have products in their stores that are made by people making less than what they consider a living wage it would be cruel would that be ok not to use your honor if that was the purpose that was students that's it i think we'd be closer to our case again we'd be affecting a national market with an economic interest whereas here we're talking about something on the police powers and health and safety which is always been reserved to the states and doesn't touch at all on economics in other states but yes you're going to hear co counsel was talking about humane treatment of animals obviously out of state am not about health and safety with endless so when you mention health and safety what are you referring to your i was referring to number one for the general police powers but also as everybody agrees proposition twelve includes health and safety component and even plaintiff's expert dr bell has been mentioned in this proceeding i think this counsel did recognize and this is in the state's briefs that there is some dispute and some discussion about confinement standards leading to safety problems but your honor as as mr wise said we can rest on the welfare standards case after case of recognized the right of the states to use this stand you're going to use this again the harris case the chinatown neighborhood cases other states other cases in other states to present a case out of new york out of the th and th circuit the horsemeat case additionally as we know california has utilized that purpose and in order to ban dog and cat meat horsemeat the sale of exotic animal parts so that purpose is more than enough your honor i think i'd also like to shift to something that in the context of this appeal is so important and that is the declaration an excerpt of record sixty to eighty four and that was submitted in response in opposition to the pro american junction motion that declaration details the extremely questionable if not incorrect conclusions and and i'm a native californian you know i would say california has a different moral compass than a lot of other life is and i'm just saying that as i'm not saying it's good it's bad or whatever but what what restrain no requirements for any under proposition twelve out of state producers have the choice to convert some or all of their activities or not again that the declaration shows that that may actually be a benefit to them if you look at that they may actually do better  and then now have a competitive advantage if you think about it because they can sell to any market whereas california out of staters cannot i should also mention that doesn't at least a dozen states have adopted standards similar to california this is the current movement in america and many many corporations have done exactly the same thing the biggest corporations and even plaintiffs members have declared their dedication to you made requirements the fact that point is don't like the specific requirements of california has case after case has demonstrated that you don't get to make that choice a paid to end in either my colleagues have an additional questions of mr right all right thank you thank you for your to get the clock right here in golf thank you your honor the st on look at the question of whether california has gives people a choice well the controlling standard is set forth in a case called carbone carbone the court said that a state may not restrict imports or exports you know or to control conduct in other states that's what's going on here they're trying to they're restricting in courts not the fuel standard there didn't control it provided incentives so it didn't can it didn't ban any fuels from the california market but it gave incentives based on the way the fuels are made this case is much different in this case california says you are banned from sending you don't work or wholesome fuel into the state unless you follow precisely the way we say that you should should make it it's an extra territorial statute it's  federal labeling law and so the state can't change the labels but what individuals could do is they could provide individual companies can market themselves by putting forth a label that indicated how our product in the th circuit has acknowledged that that's the governing standard rocky milk one and it just wasn't satisfied there but here it's quite clear the only choice we have is you either comply completely or you're out of the market but what the one less thing right so yes and then why is that so bad i mean that's an economic choice you have to make if this is a legitimate local public interests to protect animals from being treated cruelly and  people of california have said we want the products we buy to be ethically sorts to be ethically treated before they come to market here your clients decision is they either they and sell in that we should say she abused her discretion well your honor the problem with the state where each individual state deciding what oh what production standard should apply for products that are coming into the state