National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (598 U.S. 356)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 11, 2023 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 598 U.S. 356 · 143 S. Ct. 1142
- Decided
- May 11, 2023
- Term
- October Term 2022
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Gorsuch
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 598 U. S. Part 2 Pages 356–410 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT May 11, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 356 OCTOBER TERM, 2022 Syllabus NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL et al. v. ROSS, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPART- MENT 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). Confnement 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 beneft animal welfare and consumer health, and oppo- nents claimed that existing farming practices did better than Proposi- tion 12 protecting…
Excerpt of a 124,578-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.