Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 30

24 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

enhance their own profits may choose to modify their exist-
ing operations or create new ones to fill the void.3 

Of course, as the complaint alleges, a shift from one set of 
production methods to another promises some costs.  Id., at 
214a.  But the complaint concedes that complying produc-
ers will be able to “pas[s] along” at least “some” of their in-
creased costs to consumers.  Id., at 178a.  And no one thinks 
that costs ultimately borne by in-state consumers thanks to 
a law they adopted counts as a cognizable harm under our 
dormant Commerce Clause precedents.  See United Haul-
ers, 550 U. S., at 345 (holding that the dormant Commerce 
Clause is not offended by higher prices “likely to fall upon 
the very people who voted for the [challenged] la[w]”).  Nor 
does  the  complaint  allege  facts  plausibly  suggesting  that 
out-of-state consumers indifferent to pork production meth-
ods will have to pick up the tab (let alone explain how peti-
tioners might sue to vindicate their interests).  Instead, at 
least  one  declaration  incorporated  by  reference  into  the
complaint avers that some out-of-state consumers will “not 
value these changes and will not pay an increased price.” 

—————— 

3 Though it is unnecessary to adorn the point, we note that a number
of smaller out-of-state pork producers have filed an amicus brief in this 
Court hailing the “opportunities” Proposition 12 affords them to compete
with vertically integrated firms with “ ‘concentrated market power’ ” that 
are  wedded  to  their  existing  processing  practices.    Brief  for  Small  and 
Independent  Farming  Businesses  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  1,  12,  19–20. 
Other amici have noted that even some large vertically integrated pro-
cessing firms have already begun to modify (or else have indicated their 
intention to modify) their operations to comply with Proposition 12.  See 
Brief for Perdue Premium Meat Co., Inc., as Amicus Curiae 3–7; see also 
Brief for Economic Research Organizations as Amici Curiae 16–17 (re-
citing public statements from Hormel, Smithfield, and Tyson).  Another 
large  processing  firm,  Cargill,  has  boasted  that,  “ ‘[b]efore  we  sold  our 
pork business in 2015, we led the industry in removing gestation stalls 
to house pregnant sows.’ ”  Id., at 16.  Petitioner National Pork Producers 
Council  lists  Cargill  as  an  “allied  industry  compan[y].”    National  Pork 
Producers  Council,  Pork  Alliance  Program,  https://nppc.org/get-in-
volved/join-the-pork-alliance/.