Volume 598 U. S. Part 2 Pages 356–410

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT May 11, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 356 OCTOBER TERM, 2022

Syllabus

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL et al. v. ROSS, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPART- MENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 21–468. Argued October 11, 2022—Decided May 11, 2023 This case involves a challenge to a California law known as Proposition 12, which as relevant here forbids the in-state sale of whole pork meat that comes from breeding pigs (or their immediate offspring) that are “confined in a cruel manner. ” Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 25990(b)(2). Confnement is “cruel” if it prevents a pig from “lying down, standing up, fully extending [its] limbs, or turning around freely.” § 25991(e)(1). Prior to the vote on Proposition 12, proponents suggested the law would beneft animal welfare and consumer health, and oppo- nents claimed that existing farming practices did better than Proposi- tion 12 protecting animal welfare (for example, by preventing pig-on-pig aggression) and ensuring consumer health (by avoiding contamination). Page Proof Pending Publication Shortly after Proposition 12's adoption, two organizations—the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation (petitioners)—fled this lawsuit on behalf of their members who raise and process pigs alleging that Proposition 12 violates the U. S. Constitu- tion by impermissibly burdening interstate commerce. Petitioners es- timated that the cost of compliance with Proposition 12 will increase production costs and will fall on both California and out-of-state produc- ers. But because California imports almost all the pork it consumes, most of Proposition 12's compliance costs will be borne by out-of-state frms. The district court held that petitioners' complaint failed to state a claim as a matter of law and dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit affrmed. Held: The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is affrmed. 6 F. 4th 1021, affrmed. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Parts IV–B, IV–C, and IV–D, rejecting petitioners' theories that would place Proposition 12 in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause even though petitioners do not allege the law purposefully discriminates against out-of-state economic interests. Pp. 368–380, 389–391. (a) The Constitution vests Congress with the power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Although Cite as: 598 U. S. 356 (2023) 357

Syllabus

Congress may seek to exercise this power to regulate the interstate trade of pork, and many pork producers have urged Congress to do so, Congress has yet to adopt any statute that might displace Proposition 12 or laws regulating pork production in other States. Petitioners' liti- gation theory thus rests on the dormant Commerce Clause theory, pur- suant to which the Commerce Clause not only vests Congress with the power to regulate interstate trade, but also “contain[s] a further, nega- tive command,” one effectively forbidding the enforcement of “certain state [economic regulations] even when Congress has failed to legislate on the subject.” Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Jef