How the Prop 12 SCOTUS case is shaping up

The 2021-2022 term of the U.S. Supreme Court ended with a bang, and while legal pundits are dissecting the Court’s decisions regarding the right to abortion and regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, the animal protein supply chain remains focused on Oct. 11, 2022.

That’s the date scheduled for arguments on the National Pork Producers Council’s challenge to California’s Proposition 12, which bans the sale of pork from hogs born to sows that weren’t raised according to the state’s production standards.

As of the end of June, 21 amicus curiae briefs had been filed by state and federal governments, organizations and professors, most — but not all — in support of NPPC’s case.

The parties filing amicus curiae briefs include:

Associations along the pork supply chain: North American Meat Institute, Retail Litigation Center, Restaurant Law Center, Food Industry Assn., National Retail Federation, Affordable Food for All, National Assn. of Manufacturers, National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn., Nat’l. Federation of Independent Business, Protect the Harvest, Canadian Pork Council, Opormex (representing Mexican pork producers), American Assn. of Swine Veterinarians, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 14 state pork producers’ associations, four state farm bureaus, Indiana Agricultural Law Foundation, Minnesota Agrigrowth Council, North Carolina Chamber Legal Institute, North Carolina Farm Bureau

Other associations: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Assn. for Accessible Medicines, in support of NPPC’s challenge because they face their own interstate commerce challenges relating to medical drug regulation and pricing. National Taxpayers Union Foundation in support of NPPC, because they, too, have an interest in how interstate commerce is regulated. Association des Éleveurs de Canards et D’oies du Québec, HVFG LLC and Sean “Hot” Chaney, a California chef, supporting NPPC because of the legal parallels with the foie gras industry.

Government: 26 states’ attorneys general in support of NPPC, and the Solicitor General of the United States.

Legal associations, think tanks and professors: Pacific Legal Foundation in support of NPPC and honoring the Dormant Commerce Clause; The Buckeye Institute — a free-market public policy think tank — in favor of NPPC’s challenge; Washington Legal Foundation, a non-profit, public interest law firm and policy center, in support of NPPC; Yale Law Prof. Lea Brilmayer, an expert in interstate relations, extraterritorial regulation and federalism, in support of neither party but addressing some of the intricacies of the law; Prof. Michael S. Knoll of the U of Pennsylvania and Wharton, and Prof. Ruth Mason of the Virginia School of Law filing in support of NPPC, also addressing the legal “internal consistency test;” and Agricultural and Resource Economics Professors, an association, in support of neither party but seeking to “assist the Court in understanding the economic implications of Proposition 12 for California and the rest of the United States, and, in particular, to explain why the basic economic premises of Petitioners’ arguments against to Proposition 12 are fundamentally flawed.”

Par : Lisa M. Keefe (08/07/2022)

Source :

Image :