Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

4 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

Opinion of the Court 

07/a-brief-for-the-pigs-the-case-of-national-pork-producers-
council-v-ross/.  These  animals  may  receive  their  only  op-
portunity  for  exercise when  they  are  moved to  a  separate
barn to give birth and later returned for another 16 weeks
of  pregnancy  confinement—with  the  cycle  repeating  until
the  pigs  are  slaughtered.  Ibid.  Proponents  hoped  that
Proposition 12 would go a long way toward eliminating pork 
sourced in this manner “from the California marketplace.” 
A. Padilla, Cal. Secretary of State, California General Elec-
tion—Official  Voter  Information  Guide  70  (Nov.  6,  2018) 
(Voter  Guide),  https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/ 
complete-vig.pdf.    Proponents  also  suggested  that  the  law 
would have health benefits for consumers because “packing
animals in tiny, filthy cages increases the risk of food poi-
soning.”  Ibid.; see App. to Pet. for Cert. 201a–202a.

Opponents pressed their case in strong terms too.  They
argued  that  existing  farming  practices  did  a  better  job  of 
protecting animal welfare (for example, by preventing pig-
on-pig aggression) and ensuring consumer health (by avoid-
ing  contamination)  than  Proposition  12  would.    Id.,  at 
185a–187a; see also Voter Guide 70–71.  They also warned
voters that Proposition 12 would require some farmers and 
processors to incur new costs.  Id., at 69.  Ones that might 
be “passed through” to California consumers.  Ibid. 

Shortly  after  Proposition  12’s  adoption,  two  organiza-
tions—the National Pork Producers Council and the Amer-
ican  Farm  Bureau  Federation  (collectively,  petitioners)—
filed this lawsuit on behalf of their members who raise and 
process pigs.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 154a–155a.  Petitioners 
alleged that Proposition 12 violates the U. S. Constitution
by  impermissibly  burdening  interstate  commerce.    Id.,  at 
230a–232a. 

In support of that legal claim, petitioners pleaded a num-
ber of facts.  They acknowledged that, in response to con-
sumer demand and the laws of other States, 28% of their