Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

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

as it sees fit with respect to farming, manufacturing, and 
production practices in that State.  Through Proposition 12,
however, California has tried something quite different and 
unusual. 
It  has  attempted,  in  essence,  to  unilaterally
impose its moral and policy preferences for pig farming and 
pork production on the rest of the Nation.  It has sought to
deny  market  access  to  out-of-state  pork  producers  unless 
their farming and production practices in those other States
comply  with  California’s  dictates. 
The  State  has 
aggressively  propounded  a  “California  knows  best” 
economic  philosophy—where  California  in  effect  seeks  to 
regulate  pig  farming  and  pork  production  in  all  of  the 
United  States. 
California’s  approach  undermines 
federalism and the authority of individual States by forcing
individuals  and  businesses  in  one  State  to  conduct  their 
farming,  manufacturing,  and  production  practices  in  a 
manner required by the laws of a different State. 

Notably,  future  state  laws  of  this  kind  might  not  be
confined  to  the  pork  industry.  As  the  amici  brief  of  26 
States points out, what if a state law prohibits the sale of 
fruit  picked  by  noncitizens  who  are  unlawfully  in  the 
country?  Brief for Indiana et al. as Amici Curiae 33.  What 
if  a  state  law  prohibits  the  sale  of  goods  produced  by 
workers  paid less than $20 per hour?   Or as  those States 
suggest,  what  if  a  state  law  prohibits  “the  retail  sale  of 
goods from producers that do not pay for employees’ birth 
control  or  abortions”  (or  alternatively,  that  do  pay  for 
employees’ birth control or abortions)?  Ibid. 
constitutional 

challenges, 
California’s novel and far-reaching regulation could provide
a  blueprint  for  other  States.  California’s  law  thus  may 
foreshadow a new era where States shutter their markets 
to goods produced in a way that offends their moral or policy 
preferences—and in doing so, effectively force other States
to  regulate  in  accordance  with  those  idiosyncratic  state 
demands.  That  is  not  the  Constitution  the  Framers 

If  upheld  against  all