
Supreme Court rejects challenge to California pork law
By Shannon Longworth (Anchor), Ben Burke (Producer/Editor)
Media Landscape
This story is a Media Miss by the right as only 11% of the coverage is from right leaning media. Learn moreBias Summary
- Fames pulvinar lacinia arcu scelerisque turpis eleifend vivamus vehicula varius duis integer nibh blandit nam, mauris porta felis senectus metus torquent taciti a cubilia placerat odio id.
- Ad facilisis lacus gravida curae ultrices nulla diam hac odio, maximus a cursus condimentum sollicitudin eu nunc venenatis, eget integer ipsum inceptos per tempor habitasse natoque.
- Bibendum pulvinar ac posuere duis commodo potenti fames quis inceptos sem, gravida purus leo habitasse aenean orci velit nulla.
- Ut consectetur faucibus maximus sodales pharetra sagittis cursus montes et dignissim suspendisse penatibus cras a purus sit, est tellus litora auctor pellentesque fames nunc sem mus posuere dictumst dui tristique ipsum lacinia.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
The Supreme Court rejected a challenge from pork producers to a California animal cruelty law, ruling that the case was properly dismissed by lower courts. The law requires pork producers to provide more space for breeding pigs if they want to sell in the state.
Voters in California approved Proposition 12 in 2018. The Iowa-based National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation sued, saying the law would force them to change their practices even though pork is produced almost entirely outside California.
The pork producers argued that 72% of farmers use individual pens for sows, and that even farmers who house sows in larger group pens do not provide the space California would require. The producers estimated that complying with the law could cost the pork industry up to $350 million.
Even the Biden administration urged the court to side with pork producers, arguing that the law has “thrown a giant wrench” into the nation’s pork market. Despite this, the Supreme Court affirmed in its May 11 opinion on the California pork law that “companies that choose to sell products in various states must normally comply with the laws of those various states.”
“No state may use its laws to discriminate purposefully against out-of-state economic interests. But the pork producers do not suggest that California’s law offends this principle,” Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said in the court’s opinion. “Instead, they invite us to fashion two new and more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders. We decline that invitation.”
Back in October — we told you about an upcoming Supreme Court case involving a new animal cruelty law in California.
The court has now rejected a challenge to the law — ruling that the case was properly dismissed by lower courts.
The California law requires pork producers to provide more space for breeding pigs if they want to sell in the state.
Those producers sued — saying the law would force them to change their practices — even though pork is produced almost entirely outside California.
The pork producers argued that 72 percent of farmers use individual pens for sows — and that even farmers who house sows in larger group pens do not provide the space California would require.
They estimated that complying with the law could cost the pork industry up to 350 million dollars.
Even the Biden administration urged the court to side with pork producers — arguing that the law has “thrown a giant wrench” into the nation’s pork market.
Despite this — the court affirmed its opinion that in most cases — companies selling a product in a state must follow the laws of that state.
Quote — “No State may use its laws to discriminate purposefully against out-of-state economic interests. But the pork producers do not suggest that California’s law offends this principle. Instead, they invite us to fashion two new and more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders. We decline that invitation.”
Media Landscape
This story is a Media Miss by the right as only 11% of the coverage is from right leaning media. Learn moreBias Summary
- Rutrum sem vehicula est tellus hendrerit diam luctus sed dolor pretium nascetur penatibus nunc phasellus, torquent quisque pulvinar cubilia sagittis potenti feugiat praesent massa posuere dignissim tempus.
- Porttitor nostra ad porta mauris quam aliquam hac himenaeos dignissim, fringilla praesent convallis turpis aenean curae facilisi egestas, arcu nascetur felis purus in erat montes ultrices.
- Orci sem duis rhoncus pretium metus id rutrum proin purus consequat, porta augue vivamus montes velit semper mattis aliquam.
- Volutpat condimentum lectus fringilla donec ligula habitasse convallis netus magnis iaculis efficitur natoque odio praesent augue eget, dis platea ut gravida aptent rutrum facilisi consequat nulla rhoncus cursus neque vel felis vehicula.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
Straight to your inbox.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
MOST POPULAR
-
Getty Images
Starbucks ordered to pay $50 million to driver burned by hot coffee
Watch 1:31Mar 17 -
Getty Images
Coinbase says SEC is dropping its lawsuit, ‘righting a major wrong’ for crypto
Watch 3:41Feb 21 -
Getty Images
Nebraska looks to bolster cybersecurity by hiring white-hat hacker
Watch 3:10Feb 13