WASHINGTON — The United States Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by the Iowa Pork Producers Association (IPPA) regarding Proposition 12, a California animal confinement law.
Before moving to the Supreme Court, IPPA’s case was heard by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The lower court ruled in favor of Prop 12 in June 2024. Following that case, IPPA filed its petition with the Supreme Court, which was denied on June 30.
The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for why it rejected IPPA’s case, but court records indicated justices discussed it seven times. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did make a note saying he would have heard the case.
In May 2023, the court ruled against the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and others who promoted challenging Prop 12.
"The National Pork Producers Council is disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case by the Iowa Pork Producers Association against California Proposition 12, a request that raised valid concerns of discriminatory regulations that burden pork producers across the country and stand to create a patchwork of laws that neither helps pigs nor the people who raise them,” NPPC said in a statement to MEAT+POULTRY. “Our industry takes animal welfare seriously, and laws governing our industry must be based on science and workable for producers — not arbitrary requirements."
In this most recent case, IPPA argued that Prop 12 imposed an excess burden on interstate commerce and discriminated against out-of-state producers.
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird previously filed a brief, with the support of 23 state attorneys general, asking the Supreme Court to hear the case from IPPA.
After the court decided not to hear the case this week, Bird stated how the ruling will affect pork producers in her state and pledged to continue efforts to overturn the regulation.
“I will continue to fight for our producers and farmers in the active challenges still working their way through the courts, just as I did with this case and Massachusetts’ Question 3,” Bird said. “States like California and Massachusetts should not dictate Iowa farming practices. Laws like this hurt Iowa’s rural communities and make it more difficult for Americans to enjoy the world-class pork products they have come to love and expect out of our state.”
The Prop 12 ballot initiative was approved by California voters in 2018 and barred the sale of eggs or raw pork or veal sourced from animals housed in ways that do not meet California’s minimum standards.
Producers of veal calves are required under Prop 12 to house animals with at least 43 square feet of usable floor space per calf. Producers of sows need a minimum of 24 square feet of usable space per animal and laying hens are cage-free.
Representative Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) expressed his concern about the court’s decision and referenced a solution proposed in Congress in 2024.
“This mandate on Iowa hog farmers increases pork prices for families, makes hog farming needlessly more expensive, harms our rural communities and threatens our food security,” Feenstra said. “Last year, my Republican colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee and I passed a farm bill that overturned Prop 12. I remain committed to getting a new, five-year farm bill signed into law that repeals Prop 12 and delivers certainty and clarity for our hog farmers.”
Other federal legislation was proposed in 2023 regarding Prop 12, including the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act led by Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and other Republicans. Republican governors also sent a letter to Congress calling for a passage of a new bill regarding Prop 12 during that same time period.