Law Professor Says SCOTUS Decision on California Pig Breeding Law Has Big Trade Implications
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross carries "profound implications for international trade," Steve Charnovitz, professor of international law at George Washington Law School, said in a blog post.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The court ruled May 11 that a state law in California banning the in-state sale of whole pork meat from breeding pigs "confined in a cruel manner" does not violate the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause. The National Pork Producers Council claimed that since California residents buy such a large chunk of all pork sold in the U.S., the law would require pork farms nationwide to change their practices in violation of the commerce clause, which imposes some limits on a state's ability to affect laws in another state.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the council's reading of this clause invites the court "to endorse new theories of implied judicial power" and have the court recognize an "almost per se" rule against state laws that have effects beyond the state's borders, "even though it has long recognized that virtually all state laws create ripple effects beyond their borders."
Charnovitz said this ruling "has prioritized local government regulations over the burdens that such regulations place on out of territory producers," imposing a "template for greater governmental control over consumer choice." However, Charnovitz said the extent to which a state-level trade restriction is legal under the Constitution is different from "whether a national trade restriction is legal under international trade law. "