Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 54

4 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 
Opinion of KAVANAUGH, J. 

practically  all  but  impossible  for  pig  farmers  and  pork 
producers  to  segregate  individual  pigs  based  on  their 
ultimate  marketplace  destination 
in  California  or 
elsewhere.    And  California’s  13-percent  share  of  the 
consumer pork market makes it economically infeasible for 
many pig farmers and pork producers to exit the California 
market. 

California’s  required  changes  to  pig-farming  and  pork-
production practices throughout the United States will cost 
American farmers and pork producers hundreds of millions
(if not billions) of dollars.  And those costs for pig farmers
and  pork  producers  will  be  passed  on,  in  many  cases,  to
American  consumers  of  pork  via  higher  pork  prices
nationwide.  The increased costs may also result in lower 
wages  and  reduced benefits  (or  layoffs)  for  the  American 
workers who work on pig farms and in meatpacking plants.
See generally Brief for Indiana et al. as Amici Curiae 29– 
32; Brief for North Carolina Chamber Legal Institute et al. 
as Amici Curiae 9–13.2 

In  short,  through  Proposition  12,  California  is  forcing
massive  changes  to  pig-farming  and  pork-production 
practices  throughout  the  United  States.  Proposition  12 
therefore substantially burdens the interstate pork market.
See ante, at 6–10 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.).

Under the Constitution, Congress could enact a national 
law  imposing  minimum  space  requirements  or  other 
regulations  on  pig  farms  involved  in  the  interstate  pork 
market.  In the absence of action by Congress, each State 
may  of  course  adopt  health  and  safety  regulations  for 
products sold in that State.  And each State may regulate 

—————— 

2 The  majority  opinion  dismisses  this  case  as  not  presenting  a 
“weighty”  issue.  Ante,  at  2.   That  phrasing  is  misplaced.   This  case  
presents a weighty constitutional question, as the Framers surely would 
have recognized.  And it is important for the American workers, farmers, 
and  consumers  who  will  be  significantly  affected  by  the  outcome  of 
today’s decision.