Despite objections from pork industry groups, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has chosen not to revisit its previous decision upholding California’s Prop 12 law.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 57-page decision that effectively upheld Prop 12, which bans the sale of meat from farms that confine hogs in a way that prevents them from turning around.
The ruling came after a district court ruled against pork producers in Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta. In that case, IPPA sought to halt Proposition 12 by seeking a preliminary injunction of the law on claims that included dormant Commerce Clause claims similar to those rejected by the Supreme Court in NPPC v. Ross.
This regulation applies to all pork producers, regardless of their location, which agricultural organizations argued would disrupt interstate commerce unconstitutionally.
Although the Supreme Court allowed Prop 12 to remain in effect, their ruling was divided among various legal justifications.
The Iowa Pork Producers Association had renewed its challenge against the statute, asserting that the Supreme Court’s ruling opened the door to new constitutional arguments.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of 9th Circuit judges dismissed the IPPA’s claims, with the majority maintaining that the prior appellate ruling supporting Prop 12 is still valid.
The majority opinion stated that the Supreme Court had already addressed whether California’s law places an undue burden on interstate commerce.
Despite differing on the underlying reasons, most Supreme Court justices either concluded that Prop 12 does not significantly burden interstate commerce or that federal courts are not suited to resolve the issue, according to the 9th Circuit.
Given this context, the 9th Circuit felt compelled to adhere to its earlier decision to uphold the statute.
The appellate court also denied the pork group’s request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed claims that Prop 12 discriminates against out-of-state farmers and has a discriminatory intent.
In a concurring opinion, 9th Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan agreed with much of the majority’s reasoning but suggested that the case should be sent back to a district court judge.
Callahan noted that, based on her interpretation of the Supreme Court justices’ opinions, a majority believed that Prop 12 might substantially burden interstate commerce.
Therefore, she argued that a district court should evaluate the pork organization’s claim under the legal standards set by another court precedent.
The pork group still has the option to request a review from a broader panel of 9th Circuit judges or to appeal the latest ruling to the Supreme Court, though it is uncertain if the Supreme Court would agree to take up the case again.
