Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–468 
_________________ 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS v. KAREN ROSS, IN HER OFFICIAL 
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE CALI-
FORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & 
AGRICULTURE, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[May 11, 2023]

 JUSTICE GORSUCH announced the judgment of the Court 
and delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Parts
IV–B, IV–C, and IV–D. 

What goods belong in our stores?  Usually, consumer de-
mand and local laws supply some of the answer.  Recently,
California adopted just such a law banning the in-state sale 
of  certain  pork  products  derived  from  breeding  pigs  con-
fined in stalls so small they cannot lie down, stand up, or 
turn around.  In response, two groups of out-of-state pork
producers filed this lawsuit, arguing that the law unconsti-
tutionally interferes with their preferred way of doing busi-
ness in violation of this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause 
precedents.  Both the district court and court of appeals dis-
missed the producers’ complaint for failing to state a claim. 
We affirm.  Companies that choose to sell products in var-
ious  States  must  normally  comply  with  the  laws  of  those 
various  States.  Assuredly,  under  this  Court’s  dormant
Commerce  Clause  decisions, no  State  may  use  its laws  to