Justice Kavanaugh’s partial concurring and partial dissenting opinion suggests how the case should have been handled to support ag across the states.
The United States Supreme Court ruled on May 11, 2023, on a case that says California may set the standard on how we raise pork in the United States. A lot has been written about this case. (I will look at the bright side.) The case involved the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation, represented by the smartest lawyers in the land. Despite the ruling, not all was lost.
I urge everyone to read the opinion of Justice Kavanaugh (starts on page 51 in the link). He lays out how the pork industry should have handled the case, pointing out the NPPC Proposition 12 case is a “fractured decision.”
There is a lot of legal jargon in Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion but on page 52, he lays out the road map for the future for American agriculture. He says economic regulations “…like California’s Proposition 12 may raise questions not only under the Commerce Clause, but also under the Import Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.” I wonder why all the lawyers did not think of these questions for the farmers.
When our Constitution was being framed in the 1780s, the founders wanted to create a national economic market.