Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

8 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

fairly be characterized as mere costs of compliance but that
the panel below seems to have treated as such.  Because of 
Proposition 12’s square footage requirements, farms will be 
compelled to adopt group housing, which is likely to produce 
“worse health outcome[s]” and “sprea[d] pathogens and dis-
ease.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 229a.  Such housing changes
will also “upen[d] generations of animal husbandry, train-
ing, and knowledge.”  Id., at 211a.  And “[b]y preventing the 
use  of  breeding  stalls  during  the  30  to  40  day  period  be-
tween weaning and confirmation of pregnancy, Proposition 
12 puts sows at greater risk of injury and stress during the
vulnerable stages of breeding and gestation.”  Id., at 223a. 
These consequential threats to animal welfare and industry
practice are difficult to quantify and are not susceptible to
categorization as mere costs of compliance. 

Writing  for  a  plurality  of  the  Court,  JUSTICE  GORSUCH 
relies on this Court’s decision in Exxon Corp. v. Governor of 
Maryland, 437 U. S. 117 (1978), to conclude that petition-
ers’ complaint does not plead a substantial burden against 
interstate commerce.  See ante, at 21–25; see also ante, at 3 
(opinion  of  SOTOMAYOR,  J.)  (also  relying  on  Exxon).  In 
Exxon,  petroleum  producers  sued  after  Maryland  prohib-
ited their sale of retail gas within the State.  437 U. S., at 
119.  The Court concluded that “interstate commerce is not 
subjected  to  an  impermissible  burden  simply  because  an 
otherwise valid regulation causes some business[es] to shift
from one interstate supplier to another.”  Id., at 127.  Fair 
enough.  But the complaint before us pleads facts going far
beyond the allegations in Exxon.  The producers in Exxon 
operated within Maryland and wished to continue doing so. 
By contrast, petitioners here allege that Proposition 12 will 
force compliance on farmers who do not wish to sell into the 
California market, exacerbate health issues in the national 
pig population, and undercut established operational prac-
tices.  In  my  view,  these  allegations  amount  to  economic 
harms against “the interstate market”—not just “particular