National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. ___ (2023)
California’s Proposition 12 forbids the in-state sale of whole pork meat that comes from breeding pigs (or their immediate offspring) that are “confined in a cruel manner.” Confinement is “cruel” if it prevents a pig from “lying down, standing up, fully extending [its] limbs, or turning around freely.” Opponents alleged that Proposition 12 violated the Constitution by impermissibly burdening interstate commerce, arguing that the cost of compliance with Proposition 12 will increase production costs and, because California imports almost all the pork it consumes, most of Proposition 12’s compliance costs will be borne by out-of-state firms.
The Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case, rejecting arguments under the dormant Commerce Clause. Absent purposeful discrimination, a state may exclude from its territory, or prohibit the sale therein of any articles which, in its judgment, fairly exercised, are prejudicial to the interests of its citizens. Proposition 12 imposes the same burdens on in-state pork producers that it imposes on out-of-state pork producers. Proposition 12 does not implicate the antidiscrimination principle.
The Court rejected an argument that its precedents include an “almost per se” rule forbidding enforcement of state laws that have the practical effect of controlling commerce outside the state, even when those laws do not purposely discriminate against out-of-state interests. While leaving the courtroom door open to challenges premised on even nondiscriminatory burdens, the Court noted that “extreme caution is warranted.”
Supreme Court rejects a "dormant Commerce Clause" challenge to California’s Proposition 12, which forbids the in-state sale of whole pork meat that comes from breeding pigs that are “confined in a cruel manner.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL et al. v. ROSS, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 21–468. Argued October 11, 2022—Decided May 11, 2023
This case involves a challenge to a California law known as Proposition 12, which as relevant here forbids the in-state sale of whole pork meat that comes from breeding pigs (or their immediate offspring) that are “confined in a cruel manner.” Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §25990(b)(2). Confinement is “cruel” if it prevents a pig from “lying down, standing up, fully extending [its] limbs, or turning around freely.” §25991(e)(1). Prior to the vote on Proposition 12, proponents suggested the law would benefit animal welfare and consumer health, and opponents claimed that existing farming practices did better than Proposition 12 protecting animal welfare (for example, by preventing pig-on-pig aggression) and ensuring consumer health (by avoiding contamination). Shortly after Proposition 12’s adoption, two organizations—the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation (petitioners)—filed this lawsuit on behalf of their members who raise and process pigs alleging that Proposition 12 violates the U. S. Constitution by impermissibly burdening interstate commerce. Petitioners estimated that the cost of compliance with Proposition 12 will increase production costs and will fall on both California and out-of-state producers. But because California imports almost all the pork it consumes, most of Proposition 12’s compliance costs will be borne by out-of-state firms. The district court held that petitioners’ complaint failed to state a claim as a matter of law and dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is affirmed.
6 4th 1021, affirmed.
Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Parts IV–B, IV–C, and IV–D, rejecting petitioners’ theories that would place Proposition 12 in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause even though petitioners do not allege the law purposefully discriminates against out-of-state economic interests. Pp 5–17, 27–29.
(a) The Constitution vests Congress with the power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Although Congress may seek to exercise this power to regulate the interstate trade of pork, and many pork producers have urged Congress to do so, Congress has yet to adopt any statute that might displace Proposition 12 or laws regulating pork production in other States. Petitioners’ litigation theory thus rests on the dormant Commerce Clause theory, pursuant to which the Commerce Clause not only vests Congress with the power to regulate interstate trade, but also “contain[s] a further, negative command,” one effectively forbidding the enforcement of “certain state [economic regulations] even when Congress has failed to legislate on the subject.” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175, 179. This Court has held that state laws offend this dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause when they seek to “build up . . . domestic commerce” through “burdens upon the industry and business of other States.” Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U.S. 434, 443. At the same time, though, the Court has reiterated that, absent purposeful discrimination, “a State may exclude from its territory, or prohibit the sale therein of any articles which, in its judgment, fairly exercised, are prejudicial to” the interests of its citizens. Ibid.
The antidiscrimination principle lies at the “very core” of the Court’s dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 581. This Court has said that the Commerce Clause prohibits the enforcement of state laws “driven by . . . ‘economic protectionism—that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.’ ” Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328, 337–338 (quoting New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 273–274). Petitioners here disavow any discrimination-based claim, conceding that Proposition 12 imposes the same burdens on in-state pork producers that it imposes on out-of-state pork producers. Pp 5–8.
(b) Given petitioners’ concession that Proposition 12 does not implicate the antidiscrimination principle, petitioners first invoke what they call the “extraterritoriality doctrine.” They contend that the Court’s dormant Commerce Clause cases suggest an additional and “almost per se” rule forbidding enforcement of state laws that have the “practical effect of controlling commerce outside the State,” even when those laws do not purposely discriminate against out-of-state interests. Petitioners further insist that Proposition 12 offends this “almost per se” rule because the law will impose substantial new costs on out-of-state pork producers who wish to sell their products in California. Petitioners contend the rule they propose follows ineluctably from three cases: Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324; Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U.S. 573; and Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511. But a close look at those cases reveals that each typifies the familiar concern with preventing purposeful discrimination against out-of-state economic interests. In Baldwin, a New York law that barred out-of-state dairy farmers from selling their milk in the State for less than the minimum price New York law guaranteed in-state producers “plainly discriminate[d]” against out-of-staters by “erecting an economic barrier protecting a major local industry against competition from without the State.” Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 354 (discussing Baldwin). In Brown-Forman, a New York law that required liquor distillers to affirm that their in-state prices were no higher than their out-of-state prices impermissibly sought to force out-of-state distillers to “surrender” whatever cost advantages they enjoyed against their in-state rivals, which amounted to economic protectionism. 476 U. S., at 580. The Court reached a similar conclusion in Healy, which involved a Connecticut law that required out-of-state beer merchants to affirm that their in-state prices were no higher than those they charged in neighboring States. 491 U. S., at 328–330. As the Court later explained, “[t]he essential vice in laws” like Connecticut’s is that they “hoard” commerce “for the benefit of ” in-state merchants and discourage consumers from crossing state lines to make their purchases from nearby out-of-state vendors. C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 391–392.
Petitioners insist that Baldwin, Brown-Forman, and Healy taken together suggest an “almost per se” rule against state laws with “extraterritorial effects.” While petitioners point to language in these cases pertaining to the “practical effect” of the challenged laws on out-of-state commerce and prices, “the language of an opinion is not always to be parsed as though we were dealing with language of a statute.” Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 341. The language highlighted by petitioners in Baldwin, Brown-Forman, and Healy appeared in a particular context and did particular work. A close look at those cases reveals nothing like the “almost per se” rule against laws that have the “practical effect” of “controlling” extraterritorial commerce that petitioners posit, and indeed petitioners’ reading would cast a shadow over laws long understood to represent valid exercises of the States’ constitutionally reserved powers. Baldwin, Brown-Forman, and Healy did not mean to do so much. In rejecting petitioners’ “almost per se” theory the Court does not mean to trivialize the role territory and sovereign boundaries play in the federal system; the Constitution takes great care to provide rules for fixing and changing state borders. Art. IV, §3, cl. 1. Courts must sometimes referee disputes about where one State’s authority ends and another’s begins—both inside and outside the commercial context. Indeed, the antidiscrimination principle found in the Court’s dormant Commerce Clause cases may well represent one more effort to mediate competing claims of sovereign authority under our horizontal separation of powers. But none of this means, as petitioners suppose, that any question about the ability of a State to project its power extraterritorially must yield to an “almost per se” rule under the dormant Commerce Clause. This Court has never before claimed so much “ground for judicial supremacy under the banner of the dormant Commerce Clause.” United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U.S. 330, 346–347. Pp 8–14.
(c) Petitioners next point to Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, which they assert requires a court to at least assess “ ‘the burden imposed on interstate commerce’ ” by a state law and prevent its enforcement if the law’s burdens are “ ‘clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’ ” Brief for Petitioners 44. Petitioners provide a litany of reasons why they believe the benefits Proposition 12 secures for Californians do not outweigh the costs it imposes on out-of-state economic interests.
Petitioners overstate the extent to which Pike and its progeny depart from the antidiscrimination rule that lies at the core of the Court’s dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. As this Court has previously explained, “no clear line” separates the Pike line of cases from core antidiscrimination precedents. General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 298, n. 12. If some cases focus on whether a state law discriminates on its face, the Pike line serves as an important reminder that a law’s practical effects may also disclose the presence of a discriminatory purpose. Pike itself concerned an Arizona order requiring cantaloupes grown in state to be processed and packed in state. 397 U. S., at 138–140. The Court held that Arizona’s order violated the dormant Commerce Clause, stressing that even if that order could be fairly characterized as facially neutral, it “requir[ed] business operations to be performed in [state] that could more efficiently be performed elsewhere.” Id., at 145. The “practical effect[s]” of the order in operation thus revealed a discriminatory purpose—an effort to insulate in-state processing and packaging businesses from out-of-state competition. Id., at 140. While this Court has left the “courtroom door open” to challenges premised on “even nondiscriminatory burdens,” Davis, 553 U. S., at 353, and while “a small number of our cases have invalidated state laws . . . that appear to have been genuinely nondiscriminatory,” Tracy, 519 U. S., at 298, n. 12, petitioners’ claim about Proposition 12 falls well outside Pike’s heartland. Pp 15–18.
(d) The Framers equipped Congress with considerable power to regulate interstate commerce and preempt contrary state laws. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3; Art. IV, §2. While this Court has inferred an additional judicially enforceable rule against certain state laws adopted even against the backdrop of congressional silence, the Court’s cases also suggest extreme caution is warranted in its exercise. Disavowing reliance on this Court’s core dormant Commerce Clause teachings focused on discriminatory state legislation, petitioners invite the Court to endorse new theories of implied judicial power. They would have the Court recognize an “almost per se” rule against the enforcement of state laws that have “extraterritorial effects”—even though it has long recognized that virtually all state laws create ripple effects beyond their borders. Alternatively, they would have the Court prevent a State from regulating the sale of an ordinary consumer good within its own borders on nondiscriminatory terms—even though the Pike line of cases they invoke has never before yielded such a result. Like the courts that faced this case below, this Court declines both incautious invitations. Pp 27–29.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Barrett, concluded in Part IV–B that, accepting petitioners’ allegations, the Pike balancing task that they propose in this case is one no court is equipped to undertake. Some out-of-state producers who choose to comply with Proposition 12 may incur new costs, while the law serves moral and health interests of some magnitude for in-state residents. In a functioning democracy, those sorts of policy choices—balancing competing, incommensurable goods—belong to the people and their elected representatives. Pp 18–21.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan, concluded in Part IV–C that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate a substantial burden on interstate commerce, a showing Pike requires before a court may assess the law’s competing benefits or weigh the two sides against each other, and that the facts pleaded merely allege harm to some producers’ favored “methods of operation” which the Court found insufficient to state a claim in Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117, 127. Pp 21–25.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Barrett, concluded in Part IV–D that petitioners have not asked the Court to treat putative harms to out-of-state animal welfare or other noneconomic interests as freestanding harms cognizable under the dormant Commerce Clause, and in any event that the Court’s decisions authorizing claims alleging “burdens on commerce,” Davis, 553 U. S., at 353, do not provide judges “a roving license” to reassess the wisdom of state legislation in light of any conceivable out-of-state interest, economic or otherwise. United Haulers, 550 U. S., at 343. Pp 25–27.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, concluded that the judgment should be affirmed, not because courts are incapable of balancing economic burdens against noneconomic benefits as Pike requires or because of any other fundamental reworking of that doctrine, but because petitioners fail to plausibly allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce as required by Pike. Pp 1–3.
Justice Barrett concluded that the judgment should be affirmed because Pike balancing requires both the benefits and burdens of a State law to be judicially cognizable and comparable, see Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328, 354–355, but the benefits and burdens of Proposition 12 are incommensurable; that said, the complaint plausibly alleges a substantial burden on interstate commerce because Proposition 12’s costs are pervasive, burdensome, and will be felt primarily (but not exclusively) outside California. Pp 1–2.
Gorsuch, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, IV–A, and V, in which Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts IV–B and IV–D, in which Thomas and Barrett, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–C, in which Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Kagan, J., joined. Barrett, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
- Opinion (Gorsuch)
- Concurrence (Sotomayor)
- Concurrence (Barrett)
- Concurrence (Roberts)
- Concurrence (Kavanaugh)
Argued. For petitioners: Timothy S. Bishop, Chicago, Ill.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For state respondents: Michael J. Mongan, Solicitor General, San Francisco, Cal. For Humane Society of the United States, et al. respondents: Jeffrey A. Lamken, Washington, D. C. |
Motion for divided argument filed by respondents GRANTED. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED, and the time is divided as follows: 20 minutes for petitioners, 15 minutes for the Solicitor General, 25 minutes for the state respondents, and 10 minutes for The Humane Society of the United States, et al. respondents. |
Motion for leave to file respondents' brief on the merits out of time GRANTED. |
Reply of petitioners National Pork Producers Council, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of National Pork Producers Council, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Global Animal Partnership and EarthClaims LLC submitted. |
Amicus brief of Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine submitted. |
Amicus brief of Trade Law Professor Mark Wu submitted. |
Motion of The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, The Humane League, Farm Sanctuary, Compassion In World Farming USA, Animal Outlook for divided argument submitted. |
Amicus brief of Senator Cory Booker submitted. |
Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted. |
Amicus brief of Federalism Scholars submitted. |
Amicus brief of Donald Broom, Elena Contreras, Gwendolen Reyes-Illg, James Reynolds, and 374 Additional Animal-Welfare Scientists and Veterinarians submitted. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed. |
Motion for divided argument filed by respondents The Humane Society of the United States, et al. |
Amicus brief of Small and Independent Farming Businesses, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of ButcherBox submitted. |
Amicus brief of Worker Safety Advocates submitted. |
Amicus brief of The American Society For The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals submitted. |
Amicus brief of O. Carter Snead, Mary Eberstadt, and Matthew Scully submitted. |
Amicus brief of Animal Protection Organizations and Law Professors submitted. |
Amicus brief of Economic Research Organizations submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professors Barry Friedman and Daniel T. Deacon submitted. |
Amicus brief of National League for Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, and International Municipal Lawyers Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Public Citizen submitted. |
Amicus brief of Constitutional Law Scholars submitted. |
Amicus brief of Animal Protection and Rescue League, Inc. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Animal Protection Organizations and Law Professors filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Perdue Premium Meat Company Inc. d/b/a Niman Ranch submitted. |
Amicus brief of Jim Keen DVM PH.D submitted. |
Amicus brief of Thomas Aiello and Joshua Specht submitted. |
Amicus brief of Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance submitted. |
Amicus brief of Association of California Egg Farmers submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Center for Food Safety, et al. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of National League for Cities, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Global Animal Partnership and EarthClaims LLC filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Perdue Premium Meat Company Inc. d/b/a Niman Ranch filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Federalism Scholars filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Center for Food Safety, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of ButcherBox filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Association of California Egg Farmers filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Small and Independent Farming Businesses, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Historians Thomas Aiello and Joshua Specht filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of American Public Health Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Professors Barry Friedman and Daniel T. Deacon filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Economic Research Organizations filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Historians Thomas Aiello and Joshua Specht filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Worker Safety Advocates filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Donald Broom, Elena Contreras, Gwendolen Reyes-Illg, James Reynolds, and 374 Additional Animal-Welfare Scientists and Veterinarians filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Animal Protection and Rescue League, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of The American Society For The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of O. Carter Snead, Mary Eberstadt, and Matthew Scully filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Jim Keen DVM PH.D, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Trade Law Professor Mark Wu filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Jim Keen DVM PH.D, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of National League for Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, and International Municipal Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of United States Senator Cory Booker filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of The Center for a Humane Economy, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of State of Illinois, et al. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of The Center for a Humane Economy, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of State of Illinois, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Rule 30.4 Letter of The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, The Humane League, Farm Sanctuary, Compassion In World Farming USA, Animal Outlook submitted. |
Motion for leave to file respondents' brief on the merits out of time filed by respondents The Humane Society of the United States, et al. |
Brief of respondents The Humane Society of the United States, et al. filed (September 9, 2022). (Distributed) |
Brief of Karen Ross, in her official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture; Tomas Aragon, Director of the Department of Public Health; Rob Bonta, Attorney General submitted. |
Brief of The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, The Humane League, Farm Sanctuary, Compassion In World Farming USA, Animal Outlook submitted. |
Brief of State Respondents filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, The Humane League, Farm Sanctuary, Compassion In World Farming USA, Animal Outlook submitted. |
Amicus brief of Dr. Leon Barringer submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Leon Barringer filed. (Distributed) |
CIRCULATED |
The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer. |
Amicus brief of National Taxpayers Union Foundation submitted. |
Record requested from the 9th Circuit. |
Amicus brief of Professor Lea Brilmayer submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Association of Manufacturers and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Retail Litigation Center, Inc., The Restaurant Law Center, The Food Industry Association, The National Retail Federation, and Affordable Food For All submitted. |
Amicus brief of North Carolina Chamber Legal Institute, North Carolina Pork Council, North Carolina Farm Bureau, and 11 Other State Farm Bureaus, Pork Councils, and Business Groups submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Buckeye Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Association for Accessible Medicines submitted. |
Amicus brief of Association Des Éleveurs De Canards Et D’oies Du Québec, Hvfg LLC, And Sean “Hot” Chaney submitted. |
Amicus brief of Agricultural And Resource Economics Professors submitted. |
Amicus brief of Protect the Harvest submitted. |
Amicus brief of Iowa Pork Producers Association, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Canadian Pork Council, OPORMEX, and Illinois Pork Producers Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of United States submitted. |
Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professors Michael Knoll and Ruth Mason submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Association of Swine Veterinarians submitted. |
Amicus brief of North American Meat Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America submitted. |
Amicus brief of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America submitted. |
Amicus brief of Indiana, et al. submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Association Des Éleveurs De Canards Et D’oies Du Québec, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Iowa Pork Producers Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Professors Michael Knoll, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of North American Meat Institute filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Association for Accessible Medicines filed. |
Brief amici curiae of National Association of Manufacturers, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Taxpayers Union Foundation filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Agricultural And Resource Economics Professors in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amici curiae of North Carolina Chamber Legal Institute, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Protect the Harvest filed. |
Brief amici curiae of The Retail Litigation Center, Inc., et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Association of Swine Veterinarians filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Canadian Pork Council, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Lea Brilmayer in support of neither party filed. |
ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, October, 11, 2022. |
Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed. |
Amicus brief of Pacific Legal Foundation submitted. |
Brief of petitioners National Pork Producers Council, et al. filed. |
Brief of National Pork Producers Council, et al. submitted. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. |
Motion of National Pork Producers Council, et al. to dispense with joint appendix submitted. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners National Pork Producers Council, et al. |
Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 10, 2022. The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including August 8, 2022. |
Motion of National Pork Producers Council, et al. for an extension of time submitted. |
Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. |
Petition GRANTED. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/25/2022. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022. |
Reply of petitioner National Pork Producers Council, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondents Karen Ross, in her official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, et al. in opposition filed. |
Brief of respondents Humane Society of the United States, et al. in opposition filed. |
Brief amici curiae of North Carolina Chamber Legal Institute, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of National Association of Manufacturers, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Iowa Pork Producers Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including December 8, 2021, for all respondents. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 18, 2021 to December 20, 2021, submitted to The Clerk. |
Response to motion for an extension of time from petitioner National Pork Producers Council, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Canadian Pork Council filed. |
Response Requested. (Due November 18, 2021) |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/29/2021. |
Waiver of National Pork Producers Council, et al. of right to respond not accepted for filing. (October 19, 2021) |
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, National Pork Producers Council, et al. |
Waiver of right of respondents Karen Ross, in her official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, et al. to respond filed. |
Waiver of right of respondents Humane Society of the United States, et al. to respond filed. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 29, 2021) |