WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s Proposition 12, ruling in a 5-4 decision in favor of the law, which bans the sale of pork from hogs that don’t meet the state’s new production standards, even if the pork was raised on farms outside California.

National farm groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying it’s a significant loss for the U.S. pork industry.

“We had hoped for a different outcome, but we didn’t necessarily hope for a different outcome just for our producers and our farmers who are going to be impacted by this ruling,” said Bryan Humphreys, NPPC CEO. “We hoped for a different outcome for the consumers of California, and a recognition of the burden that this is going to place on them.”

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the NPPC argued Proposition 12 violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which restricts states from regulating commerce outside their borders.

The brief, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, states Proposition 12 “will require massive and costly changes across the entire $26-billion-a-year industry. And it inescapably projects California’s policy choices into every other state, a number of which expressly permit their farmers to house sows in ways inconsistent with Proposition 12.”

Moreover, the national farm groups argued if California’s law stands, then other states can set requirements, making it more difficult to meet each state’s varying production standards.

The Supreme Court affirmed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed a lawsuit filed by the national farm groups against Prop 12, citing the industry groups did not state a claim of damages.

“Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” Humphreys said. “We are still evaluating the court’s full opinion to understand all the implications. The National Pork Producers Council will continue to fight for our nation’s pork farmers and American families against misguided regulations.”

Proposition 12 also requires whole pork meat to be born to a sow that was housed with 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow a sow to turn around without touching an enclosure. If pork is sold and doesn’t meet the requirements, it will be a criminal offense and civil violation.

According to a 2021 Rabobank report, the U.S. pork industry will face a daunting task to comply with the law.

“With less than 4 percent of the U.S. sow housing currently able to meet the new standard, Rabobank expects a shortfall in compliant pork to bifurcate (divide into two branches) the U.S. market, leaving California with a severe pork deficit (and high prices), while generating a surplus in the rest of the U.S. market,” the report said.

The study said to make a move from the industry standard of 18 to 20 square feet per sow to compliant spacing of 24 square feet per sow, a hog farmer would require 20 to 25 percent more barn space, or force a reduction in stocking densities (the number of animals that are kept on a given unit of area).

If hog farmers outside California adjust their operations to meet Proposition 12, Rabobank forecasts production flows to drop by at least 25 percent, disrupting the entire supply chain.

“The American Farm Bureau Federation is disappointed in the closely-divided Supreme Court ruling on California’s Proposition 12,” said Zippy Duvall, American Farm Bureau Federation president. “At the heart of this argument is whether one state can set the rules for the entire country.

“The arbitrary standards take away flexibility to ensure hogs are raised in a safe environment,” he added. “Prop 12 will cause further consolidation in agriculture nationwide and lead to higher pork prices at the grocery store for America’s families. This law will ultimately harm consumers, farmers and animals.”

Josh Trenary, Indiana Pork Producers Association executive director, said, “We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Misguided regulations generated by one state, but applied nationally, places a strain both on pork farmers and consumers. That being said, the pork industry has dealt with regulatory policy wins and losses for decades.

Richard Guebert, Illinois Farm Bureau president, said, “Illinois Farm Bureau is frustrated by the news of the May 11 (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling regarding California’s Proposition 12, which ultimately creates a concerning precedent. Currently, the opinion is still being reviewed by Farm Bureau legal staff. We will provide insight as it becomes available.”

In a May 17 statement, Michigan Farm Bureau officials said it is disappointed by the ruling and concerned about the potential precedent it sets.

“The long-term ramifications could be very detrimental to the free flow of goods and services from state to state, and ultimately harm consumers and families,” officials said.

Cheryl Day, Ohio Pork Council executive vice president, said, “Ohio’s pork-producing families have always, and will continue to, put the well-being of their animals at the top of their daily agenda. That’s why it’s unfortunate that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that upholds California’s Proposition 12 will not achieve better animal care.

“The enactment of this unscientific mandate, only approved by a contentious 5-4 opinion by the Court, will lead to multiple, unfortunate outcomes – including much higher prices for pork for California’s millions of consumers,” she said.

U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), who chairs the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, said, “U.S producers simply cannot operate in a system where one state can dictate production standards for the entire country.

“I will continue to review today’s decision and explore solutions that ensure the hardworking farmers and ranchers who put the food on the tables of the American people can do so without being unduly burdened by excessive regulation.”