2023 United States Supreme Court case
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross Full case name National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. Karen Ross, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture, et al. Docket no. 21-468 Citations 598 U.S. 356 (more
Argument Oral argument Opinion announcement Opinion announcement Prior Motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings granted, 456 F.Supp.3d 1201 (S.D. Cal. 2020); affirmed, 6 F.4th 1021 (9th Cir. 2021); cert. granted, 596 U.S. ___ (2022). Affirmed the lower courts, dismissing the case and allowing the law to stand.
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Majority Gorsuch (Parts I, II, III, IV–A, and V), joined by Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett Plurality Gorsuch (Parts IV–B and IV–D), joined by Thomas and Barrett Plurality Gorsuch (Part IV–C), joined by Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan Concurrence Sotomayor (in part), joined by Kagan Concurrence Barrett (in part) Concur/dissent Roberts, joined by Alito, Kavanaugh, Jackson Concur/dissent Kavanaugh U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 3
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross United States Supreme Court case related to the Dormant Commerce Clause .
In 2018, California's voters approved Proposition 12 , which seeks to better the treatment of pigs kept for livestock by barring the sale of pork produced in conditions that are common in the industry today. Much of the pork consumed in the state is imported from other parts of the United States, so the proposition affects the national pork industry as a whole. A group of farmers and corporations in the pork industry, led by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), sued the California Department of Food and Agriculture , led by Karen Ross . They asserted the proposition violates the Dormant Commerce Clause , which prohibits laws that impact interstate commerce.[ 1]
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the lawsuit, with judge Thomas Whelan stating that Proposition 12 did not attempt to fully regulate the pork industry in other states.[ 2] United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit .[ 1]
NPPC filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.[ 3]
Certiorari was granted in the case on March 28, 2022. Oral arguments were heard on October 11, 2022.
The Biden administration asked the court to overturn the law in order to protect the country's pork industry.[ 4]
The Supreme Court issued its decision on May 11, 2023. In a 5–4 ruling, the court upheld the lower court ruling in dismissing the lawsuit and ruling Proposition 12 was legal.[ 4] Neil Gorsuch , joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett.[ 1] [ 1]
Gorsuch addressed the ruling in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. [ 5] Pike when the variables to be balanced can be measured and compared directly. To him, the comparison of economic cost to humane treatment was "incommensurable."
When the Justices' votes and justifications are counted, there was a clear majority that believed Pike remains valid, namely: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Alito, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor. There was also a clear majority among the justices that that Proposition 12 could not survive a Pike analysis, namely: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Alito, Jackson, and Barrett. The fractured plurality ultimately decided to uphold the law, creating a voting paradox . Therefore, the precise precedential meaning of the case is unclear.[ 6]
Analyst Ian Millhiser wrote that the case was a rare instance of the Court reducing the judiciary's ability to block state laws.[ 5]
^ a b c d Howe, Amy (May 11, 2023). "Court upholds California animal-welfare law" . SCOTUSblog . Retrieved May 13, 2023 . ^ Davies, Steve (April 29, 2020). "Judge dismisses suit challenging California's Prop 12" . Argi-Pulse . Retrieved May 13, 2023 . ^ Howe, Amy (March 28, 2022). "Justices add three new cases, including challenge to animal-welfare law and Warhol copyright dispute" . SCOTUSblog . Retrieved May 4, 2022 . ^ a b "Supreme Court rejects challenge to California pork law mandating more space for pigs" . www.cbsnews.com . Retrieved May 12, 2023 .^ a b Millhiser, Ian (May 11, 2023). "The Supreme Court rediscovers humility — in a case about pigs" . Vox . Retrieved May 15, 2023 . ^ "Term Talk (2022-2023): National Pork Producers Council v. Ross" . October 12, 2023. Retrieved December 4, 2023 .
Dormant Commerce Clause
Brown v. Maryland Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. Cooley v. Board of Wardens Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois Swift & Co. v. United States George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. Edwards v. California Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. National Bellas Hess v. Illinois Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland Reeves, Inc. v. Stake Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke Maine v. Taylor Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy Granholm v. Heald United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas National Pork Producers Council v. Ross Others
Copyright Act of 1790 Patent Act of 1793 Patent infringement case lawPatentability case lawCopyright Act of 1831 Copyright Act of 1870 Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 International Copyright Act of 1891 Copyright Act of 1909 Patent misuse case lawClayton Antitrust Act of 1914 Lanham Act
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. Copyright Act of 1976
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid Stewart v. Abend Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. New York Times Co. v. Tasini Eldred v. Ashcroft MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick Golan v. Holder Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. Allen v. Cooper Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. Other copyright cases Other patent cases
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde United States v. General Electric Co. United States v. Univis Lens Co. Altvater v. Freeman Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther Brulotte v. Thys Co. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. Graham v. John Deere Co. United States v. Adams Brenner v. Manson Lear, Inc. v. Adkins Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. Gottschalk v. Benson United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. Dann v. Johnston Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. Parker v. Flook Diamond v. Chakrabarty Diamond v. Diehr Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. Dickinson v. Zurko Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. Bilski v. Kappos Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Kappos v. Hyatt Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Gunn v. Minton Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. Other trademark cases
