Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL ET AL. v. 
ROSS, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA 
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, ET AL. 

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

No. 21–468.  Argued October 11, 2022—Decided May 11, 2023 

This case involves a challenge to a California law known as Proposition 
12, which as relevant here forbids the in-state sale of whole pork meat 
that comes from breeding pigs (or their immediate offspring) that are 
“confined  in  a  cruel  manner.”    Cal.  Health  &  Safety  Code  Ann.  
§25990(b)(2).    Confinement  is  “cruel”  if  it  prevents  a  pig  from  “lying 
down,  standing  up,  fully  extending  [its]  limbs,  or  turning  around 
freely.”  §25991(e)(1).  Prior to the vote on Proposition 12, proponents 
suggested the law would benefit animal welfare and consumer health, 
and opponents claimed that existing farming practices did better than
Proposition 12 protecting animal welfare (for example, by preventing 
pig-on-pig aggression) and ensuring consumer health (by avoiding con-
tamination).    Shortly  after  Proposition  12’s  adoption,  two  organiza-
tions—the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm 
Bureau Federation (petitioners)—filed this lawsuit on behalf of their 
members who raise and process pigs alleging that Proposition 12 vio-
lates  the  U. S.  Constitution  by  impermissibly  burdening  interstate 
commerce.    Petitioners  estimated  that  the  cost  of  compliance  with
Proposition 12 will increase production costs and will fall on both Cal-
ifornia and out-of-state producers.  But because California imports al-
most  all  the  pork  it  consumes,  most  of  Proposition  12’s  compliance
costs will be borne by out-of-state firms.  The district court held that 
petitioners’  complaint  failed  to  state  a  claim  as  a  matter  of  law  and 
dismissed the case.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed. 

Held: The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is affirmed. 

6 4th 1021, affirmed.