All nine justices agreed EPA’s “significant nexus” test — the agency’s tool to assert more authority over private land — was an overreach.

The Alabama Farmers Federation and farm groups across the country have sought clear, concise water regulation for years. Rules set in 2015 and 2023 created vague boundaries allowing federal regulation over vast areas of land as “water.”

“With this ruling, the Supreme Court has vindicated what we and other groups have said for years — the Corps and EPA had clearly overstepped the authorities granted by Congress,” said the Federation’s Mitt Walker, who manages national affairs for the state’s largest farm organization. “The court has effectively nullified the 2023 WOTUS rule and ensured future rules are consistent with the intent of the Clean Water Act.”

The 2023 rule officially remains on the books but is not enforceable by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) litigation in Texas and North Dakota challenging the Clean Water Act will likely toss the rule, causing the Biden Administration to propose new, scaled-back regulations.

AFBF President Zippy Duvall welcomed the late-May decision.

“The justices respect private property rights,” said Duvall, a Georgia farmer. “It’s now time for the Biden Administration to do the same and rewrite the Waters of the United States Rule. Farmers and ranchers share the goal of protecting the resources they’re entrusted with, but they deserve a rule that provides clarity and doesn’t require a team of attorneys to properly care for their land.”

Source:

In a fractured ruling that divided the cour along nonideological lines, the majority said the measure, known as Proposition 12, did not unlawfully regulate pork produced in other states, as the challengers claimed. The law is on hold as part of separate litigation in state court.

Five justices wrote their own opinions, showing that there was considerable dissension over what legal rationale to adopt. While five justices said the lawsuit should be dismissed, four said it should have been allowed to move forward.

The ruling, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, protects the authority of states to enact laws to protect the health and welfare of the public even if the measures have impacts out of state. Groups that back California had warned that a broad ruling against it could limit states’ authority to enact laws about a wide variety of issues, including measures to address climate change, such as by efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels by promoting renewable energy.

“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list,” Gorsuch said.

While it is long established that states cannot use their laws to discriminate against out-of-state interests, the California law is focused on regulating the sale of pork within its own borders, he said.

Scott Hays, the president of the National Pork Producers Council, which challenged the measure, said in a statement: “We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation.”

Californians approved Proposition 12 in 2018 with nearly 63% of the vote, a margin of more than 3 million votes. The measure would require that sows have at least 24 square feet of space in their enclosures, allowing them to turn around. The state’s lawyers  that voters were told the measure, which is not in effect, would most likely increase the price of pork but provide for more humane living conditions for pigs and potentially reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses.

The National Pork Producers Council, which represents the pork industry, and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents farming interests, sued in 2019, saying the measure violates a provision of the Constitution called the commerce claus, which has been interpreted to bar states from interfering with interstate commerce.

The challengers said the measure would impermissibly interfere with interstate commerce in part because almost all of the pork sold in California is produced out of state by farmers who would not currently be in compliance. The law would also impose an excessive burden on out-of-state entities without having a clear in-state benefit, they argue. As a result, they say, the law has an unlawfully broad extraterritorial effect.

Lower courts upheld the measure, prompting the challengers to turn to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Other states have passed similar laws based on moral concerns, including nine that ban products tested on animals and eight that ban eggs produced by caged hens, lawyers for the Humane Society of the United States have pointed out. Nine states also ban sales of fetal tissue from aborted fetuses, according to court filings.

The groups challenging the California law said in court papers that Proposition 12 “will transform the pork industry nationwide” because currently nearly all farmers keep sows in pens that do not comply with the law.

Source:

The 2018 initiative, Proposition 12, aims to prevent the  that pig farms typically use to house sows whose offspring are taken for slaughter and sale. The initiative requires at least 24 square feet of space per pig—10 square feet more than the industry says most sows are provided elsewhere in the U.S.

The Supreme Court has applied the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to prevent states from discriminating in favor of their own domestic industries.  applies regardless of where the pigs are raised, however, and lower courts dismissed the lawsuit because they found no constitutional violation in the initiative making it more costly to produce meat for the California market.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the industry argued that because most pork is raised outside California, the state is attempting to transform production practices throughout the country to meet its vision of animal welfare.

Timothy Bishop, representing the National Pork Producers Council, told the court that state regulations imposing costs on out-of-state businesses are unconstitutional.

“California’s moral view that pigs shouldn’t be kept this way could be matched by Iowa’s view that the most important thing about these sows is producing inexpensive pork,” Mr. Bishop said.

Under questioning from the justices, Mr. Bishop said California could take other steps to promote animal welfare, including applying the regulations to in-state farms, requiring grocery-store labels so consumers could identify pork raised under humane conditions or even forbidding sale of the meat altogether.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether California’s law truly would be so devastating to the industry, noting that consumer demand already was pushing farms toward more humane treatment. According to the briefs, 28% of gestating pigs already are housed in groups rather than confinement cages, she said.

Less than 10% of U.S. sow housing meets California’s Proposition 12 standards, up from roughly 4% at the start of 2021, according to agricultural lender Rabobank.

Violations of the law in supermarkets and restaurants could be punished with fines of up to $1,000 or as many as 180 days in jail, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Meatpacking companies and hog farmers have resisted California’s ballot measure, saying it would raise meat prices by causing hog farmers to spend millions of dollars building new barns and changing their operations. Pork suppliers say the law would create chaos in the supply chain and risk their pigs’ health.

Proposition 12 passed with 62% support, though its proponents’ argument in the official ballot materials noted that the measure would likely increase the price of pork, with additional production costs passed on to consumers.

U.S. pork companies are paying more for the hogs they buy from farmers, pressuring profits for some of the largest U.S. processors. Part of meatpackers’ challenge is that hogs are getting scarcer and more expensive. The costs of farm labor, equipment and livestock feed , making farmers more hesitant to grow the size of their herd, according to hog farmers. Pork industry executives and farmers say Proposition 12 would add another expense onto farmers and raise the price of pork.

Source: