by John F. Savarese, Kevin S. Schwartz, Noah B. Yavitz, Adam L. Goodman, and Jacob Miller
From left to right: John F. Savarese, Kevin S. Schwartz, Noah B. Yavitz, Adam L. Goodman, and Jacob Miller (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)
Recently, a divided Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a California law banning the in-state sale of meat from pigs confined under specified “cruel” conditions. Petitioners — two industry organizations — had alleged the law violates the Commerce Clause by imposing substantial costs on out-of-state producers and impermissibly regulating the national pork market. This challenge marked an effort by the industry to expand the so-called “dormant” Commerce Clause, which polices states’ ability to enact regulations with interstate impact when Congress has chosen not to act in the field sought to be regulated by a state. That effort failed. In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, all nine Justices rejected petitioners’ argument that there exists an “almost per se” rule forbidding enforcement of state laws that have the practical effect of imposing prescriptions on commerce outside the state.