This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/11/us/supreme-court-pigs-animal-cruelty.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme Court Wrestles With Case on Pigs, Cruelty and Commerce Supreme Court Wrestles With Case on Pigs, Cruelty and Commerce
(1 day later)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether California can address cruelty to animals by requiring that pork sold in the state come from breeding pigs housed in spaces that allow them to move around freely.WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether California can address cruelty to animals by requiring that pork sold in the state come from breeding pigs housed in spaces that allow them to move around freely.
There was no dispute that the state could regulate the treatment of pigs within its borders. But California produces almost no pork, even as its residents consume 13 percent of the pork produced in other states.There was no dispute that the state could regulate the treatment of pigs within its borders. But California produces almost no pork, even as its residents consume 13 percent of the pork produced in other states.
The question for the justices was whether the law’s impact on business practices in those other states ran afoul of the Constitution.The question for the justices was whether the law’s impact on business practices in those other states ran afoul of the Constitution.
Justice Elena Kagan said she was worried that states might enact all sorts of laws effectively regulating conduct outside their borders.Justice Elena Kagan said she was worried that states might enact all sorts of laws effectively regulating conduct outside their borders.
“We live in a divided country,” she said, “and the Balkanization that the framers were concerned about is surely present today.”“We live in a divided country,” she said, “and the Balkanization that the framers were concerned about is surely present today.”
She added: “Do we want to live in a world where we’re constantly at each other’s throats and, you know, Texas is at war with California and California at war with Texas?”She added: “Do we want to live in a world where we’re constantly at each other’s throats and, you know, Texas is at war with California and California at war with Texas?”
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch acknowledged the possibility of such conflicts but suggested that the matter was for Congress to sort out rather than the courts.Justice Neil M. Gorsuch acknowledged the possibility of such conflicts but suggested that the matter was for Congress to sort out rather than the courts.
“We’re going to have to balance your veterinary experts against California’s veterinary experts, the economic interests of Iowa farmers against California’s moral concerns and their views about complicity in animal cruelty,” he told a lawyer representing pork producers “We’re going to have to balance your veterinary experts against California’s veterinary experts, the economic interests of Iowa farmers against California’s moral concerns and their views about complicity in animal cruelty,” he told a lawyer representing pork producers.
“Is that any job for a court of law?” Justice Gorsuch said. “I mean, the commerce clause, after all, is in Article I, which would allow Congress to resolve any of these questions.”“Is that any job for a court of law?” Justice Gorsuch said. “I mean, the commerce clause, after all, is in Article I, which would allow Congress to resolve any of these questions.”
The case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21-468, concerned Proposition 12, a 2018 ballot measure approved by more than 60 percent of California’s voters. Two trade groups sued, saying it interfered with interstate commerce and sound business practices.The case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21-468, concerned Proposition 12, a 2018 ballot measure approved by more than 60 percent of California’s voters. Two trade groups sued, saying it interfered with interstate commerce and sound business practices.
The law forbids the sale of most pork in California unless the pig it comes from was born to a sow that was housed with 24 square feet of space. But most sows around the nation are kept in much smaller enclosures.The law forbids the sale of most pork in California unless the pig it comes from was born to a sow that was housed with 24 square feet of space. But most sows around the nation are kept in much smaller enclosures.
Timothy S. Bishop, a lawyer for the trade groups, said the law effectively imposed a nationwide regulation. “California wants to change farming methods everywhere,” he said.Timothy S. Bishop, a lawyer for the trade groups, said the law effectively imposed a nationwide regulation. “California wants to change farming methods everywhere,” he said.
Such extraterritorial requirements, he said, ran afoul of the Constitution’s commerce clause.Such extraterritorial requirements, he said, ran afoul of the Constitution’s commerce clause.
Though the clause addresses congressional power, the Supreme Court has said that it also imposes some limits on state laws that affect conduct beyond the state’s borders. Those limits are said to arise from “the dormant commerce clause.”Though the clause addresses congressional power, the Supreme Court has said that it also imposes some limits on state laws that affect conduct beyond the state’s borders. Those limits are said to arise from “the dormant commerce clause.”
The justices explored how that interpretation applied to the California law with questions about actual and hypothetical laws.The justices explored how that interpretation applied to the California law with questions about actual and hypothetical laws.
Justice Kagan asked whether a state could bar the sale of imported wood unless it was treated with specified pesticides. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about emissions standards. Both asked about outright bans on the sale of horse meat.Justice Kagan asked whether a state could bar the sale of imported wood unless it was treated with specified pesticides. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about emissions standards. Both asked about outright bans on the sale of horse meat.
Edwin S. Kneedler, a lawyer for the federal government arguing in support of the pork producers, gave a candid answer to a question from Justice Kagan.Edwin S. Kneedler, a lawyer for the federal government arguing in support of the pork producers, gave a candid answer to a question from Justice Kagan.
“Suppose we imagine ourselves back into slavery days,” she said. “Would it have been impermissible for a state to have said we’re not going to traffic in products that have been produced by slavery?”“Suppose we imagine ourselves back into slavery days,” she said. “Would it have been impermissible for a state to have said we’re not going to traffic in products that have been produced by slavery?”
Mr. Kneedler responded that “I think the logic of our position would say yes.”Mr. Kneedler responded that “I think the logic of our position would say yes.”
Both Mr. Bishop and Mr. Kneedler said that California was not entitled to impose its moral views on other parts of the nation.Both Mr. Bishop and Mr. Kneedler said that California was not entitled to impose its moral views on other parts of the nation.
“California’s moral opposition or philosophical opposition really can’t count,” Mr. Kneedler said.“California’s moral opposition or philosophical opposition really can’t count,” Mr. Kneedler said.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said there were moral values on both sides.Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said there were moral values on both sides.
“I think people in some states, maybe the ones that produce a lot of pork, in Iowa or North Carolina or Indiana, may think there’s a moral value in providing a low-cost source of protein to people, maybe particularly at times of rising food prices,” he said.“I think people in some states, maybe the ones that produce a lot of pork, in Iowa or North Carolina or Indiana, may think there’s a moral value in providing a low-cost source of protein to people, maybe particularly at times of rising food prices,” he said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the moral objections of California’s pork consumers could be addressed by requiring that meat be labeled, which she suggested was a less intrusive approach than the one the state had adopted.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the moral objections of California’s pork consumers could be addressed by requiring that meat be labeled, which she suggested was a less intrusive approach than the one the state had adopted.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there were practical reasons to allow pigs to move around. “People could reasonably believe that close confinement of farm animal increases the likelihood of new diseases jumping from animals to humans or vice versa,” she said.Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there were practical reasons to allow pigs to move around. “People could reasonably believe that close confinement of farm animal increases the likelihood of new diseases jumping from animals to humans or vice versa,” she said.
Jeffrey A. Lamken, a lawyer for the Humane Society of the United States, said the law at issue was modest and sensible.Jeffrey A. Lamken, a lawyer for the Humane Society of the United States, said the law at issue was modest and sensible.
“It prohibits the sale within California of pork that Californians find immoral and unsafe regardless of where it originates,” he said.“It prohibits the sale within California of pork that Californians find immoral and unsafe regardless of where it originates,” he said.
Michael J. Mongan, California’s solicitor general, said the law was narrow and applied only to how products sold in the state were produced.Michael J. Mongan, California’s solicitor general, said the law was narrow and applied only to how products sold in the state were produced.
Justice Barrett asked about other possible restrictions: “So could you have California pass a law that said we’re not going to buy any pork from companies that don’t require all their employees to be vaccinated or from corporations that don’t fund gender-affirming surgery or that sort of thing?”Justice Barrett asked about other possible restrictions: “So could you have California pass a law that said we’re not going to buy any pork from companies that don’t require all their employees to be vaccinated or from corporations that don’t fund gender-affirming surgery or that sort of thing?”
Mr. Mongan said such laws would be problematic because they would address “a general companywide policy with respect to all of that company’s activities wherever it does business.”Mr. Mongan said such laws would be problematic because they would address “a general companywide policy with respect to all of that company’s activities wherever it does business.”