In a fractured ruling that divided the courts, 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 the law could limit states’ authority to enact laws about a wide variety of issues, including measures to address climate change, including efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels by promoting renewable energy.

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 pointed out in court papers 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 clause, which has been interpreted to bar states from interfering with interstate commerce.

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 pointed out.

Source:

The justices turned away a Bayer appeal and left in place a lower court decision that upheld $25 million in damages awarded to a Roundup user who blamed his cancer on the glyphosate-based weedkillers.

The Supreme Court’s action dealt a blow to Bayer as the company maneuvers to limit its legal liability in thousands of cases. The justices have a second Bayer petition pending on a related issue that they could act upon in the coming weeks.

In a statement Tuesday, Bayer said that it disagrees with the court’s decision not to take its appeal and “is confident that the extensive body of science and consistently favorable views of leading regulatory bodies worldwide provide a strong foundation on which it can successfully defend Roundup in court when necessary.”

The court denied a petition from the American Institute for International Steel (AIIS), a trade association representing steel importers and users of imported steel products.

The AIIS initially filed its lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade, which ruled in favor of the federal government. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then affirmed the international trade court’s ruling.
Trump in 2018 imposed a tariff of 25 percent on steel imports, as well as a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports under a provision that allows the president to impose tariffs for national security purposes.

Source: The Hill