美国最高法院周四驳回了对加州12号提案的挑战，全州禁止销售关在笼子里或拥挤的猪圈里的猪的猪肉，这些猪不能自由走动。
这项裁决动物福利倡导者们欢呼这是一个“分水岭时刻”，可能会对数以千计的农民、数百万头怀孕的猪，以及美国人在杂货店购买美国最受欢迎的肉类之一的价格产生重大影响。
尼尔·戈萨奇法官(Justice Neil Gorsuch)代表五名法官的多数意见表示，加州选民在2018年以压倒性多数支持“道德猪肉”法，并有权决定商店货架上出现什么产品。
“选择在不同州销售产品的公司通常必须遵守这些州的法律，”戈萨奇在中写道意见。“虽然宪法解决了许多重大问题，但加州商人可能出售的猪排类型不在名单上。”
“各州早就颁布了旨在保护动物福利的法律，”戈萨奇写道。“支持者希望12号提案将大大有助于消除加州市场上以这种方式采购的猪肉。”
第12号提案于四年前获得批准，但由于法律挑战，该提案尚未生效，该提案宣布来自饲养在小于24平方英尺的猪妈妈的猪肉为非法。
该国200亿美元的猪肉行业曾辩称，这些限制违反了宪法的休眠贸易条款通过显著影响加州以外的农民和他们在最大市场之一的销售能力。
根据美国农业部的数据，加州消费了美国13%的猪肉，这是美国最大的市场，但产量仅为1%。
爱荷华州、明尼苏达州和北卡罗来纳州等猪肉产量较高的州的农民警告称，为遵守加利福尼亚州的法律而重新调整经营将花费数十亿美元，导致生产效率降低，环境可持续性下降。该行业表示，大多数美国猪肉是在不符合Prop 12标准的设施中生产的。
“我们对最高法院的意见非常失望。密苏里州猪肉生产商、起诉加州的全国猪肉生产商委员会(National Pork Producers Council)主席斯科特·海斯(Scott Hays)表示:“允许州政府过度干预将提高消费者的价格，并迫使小农场破产，从而导致更多的整合。”。
高等法院的裁决确认了两个下级法院的裁决，即认定州外猪肉生产商未能从法律上对加州提出有效的索赔。
但是一些持不同意见的法官和外部法律学者表示，法院的决定为未来基于不同理由对第12号提案的法律挑战敞开了大门。
“我们仍在评估法院的全部意见，以了解所有的影响。海斯说:“NPPC将继续为我们国家的猪肉农民和美国家庭反对被误导的法规而斗争。”。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨和大法官塞缪尔·阿利托，布雷特·卡瓦诺凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊在一定程度上不同意戈萨奇的观点。
“我会发现，请愿人似乎声称对州际商业造成了巨大负担，因此将撤销判决，并将案件发回下级法院，以决定请愿人是否提出了索赔，”罗伯茨写道。
去年，美国广播公司新闻得到罕见的内景12号提案辩论双方的三个商业猪肉农场。
“当你需要做出改变以适应加州市场时，我非常担心我们的长期成功会是什么，”第三代明尼苏达州猪肉农民迈克·波尔布姆当时说。
他的农场每年养猪超过40万头，不符合12号提案。“40年来，我们一直在圈养猪，”他说。
拜登政府站在猪肉农民一边，担心一个州不应该被允许过度破坏美国的一个主要行业。
但是，即使在法院判决之前，就有迹象表明市场力量和消费者偏好已经促使生产商采取动物保护者认为更符合道德的做法。
“我们认为这创造了一种更健康的动物，更健康的动物等同于更健康的食用产品，”明尼苏达州奥斯汀的约翰·乔沃格说，他的农场是尼曼农场网络的一部分，该网络由专门从事经认证的“人道饲养”猪和其他动物的家庭农民组成。
“他们需要更多的农民以这种方式来满足需求，”Ruth Jovaag谈到快速变化的消费者偏好时说。“供应不足。”
主要猪肉生产商喜欢霍梅尔泰森食品公司——最初反对12号提案——表示，由于对人工饲养肉类的需求不断增长，他们已经准备至少完全遵守部分法律。Hormel表示，它的许多产品已经符合Prop 12。
尼曼牧场总经理克里斯·奥利维耶罗在一份关于最高法院判决的声明中说:“对于动物福利来说，这是一个真正的分水岭。”。“从第一天起，尼曼牧场就成为了唯一一家禁止使用板条箱养猪的公司，如今，我们的500多家独立家庭农场主合作伙伴自豪地100%免费使用板条箱养猪。”
美国动物保护协会主席兼首席执行官基蒂·布洛克说，将数千头怀孕的猪关在猪肉农场是残忍的待遇，对人类健康有害。
美国广播公司新闻
帮助制定和捍卫第12号提案的美国人道协会主席兼首席执行官凯蒂·布洛克说，这部法律现在是“美国最强有力的农场动物福利法”
“我们很高兴最高法院支持加州12号提案，”布洛克在一份声明中说，“并明确表示，防止虐待动物和保护公共健康是我们州政府的核心职能。”
Supreme Court upholds California ban on 'unethical' pork, Proposition 12
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejecteda challenge to California's Proposition 12,a statewide ban on the sale of pork from pigs housed in cages or crowded group pens that prevent them from turning around freely.
The ruling, whichanimal welfareadvocates hailed as a "watershed moment," could have a major impact on thousands of farmers, millions of pregnant pigs -- and the prices Americans pay at the grocery store for one of the country's most popular meats.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a five-justice majority, said that California voters overwhelmingly endorsed the "ethical pork" law in 2018 and have the right to decide what products appear on store shelves.
"Companies that choose to sell products in various States must normally comply with the laws of those various States," Gorsuch wrote inthe opinion. "While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list."
"States have long enacted laws aimed at protecting animal welfare," Gorsuch wrote. "Proponents hoped that Proposition 12 would go a long way toward eliminating pork sourced in this manner from the California marketplace."
Proposition 12, which was approved four years ago but has not yet taken effect due to legal challenges, outlaws pork derived from mother pigs housed in less than 24-square-feet.
The nation's $20 billion pork industry had argued that the restrictions violate the Constitution's dormantCommerce Clauseby significantly impacting farmers outside of California and their ability to sell in one of the largest markets.
California consumes 13% of U.S. pork, the largest market in the country, but produces just 1%, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Farmers in heavy pork-producing states like Iowa, Minnesota and North Carolina had warned it will cost billions of dollars to retool their operations to comply with California's law, resulting in less efficient and environmentally sustainable production. Most American pork is produced in facilities that do not meet Prop 12 standards, the industry says.
"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," said Scott Hays, a Missouri pork producer and president of the National Pork Producers Council, which sued California.
The high court decision affirms rulings of two lower courts that found the out-of-state pork producers had failed to state a valid claim against California as a matter of law.
But several dissenting justices and outside legal scholars say the Court's decision keeps the door open to a future legal challenge against Prop 12 on different grounds.
"We are still evaluating the Court's full opinion to understand all the implications. NPPC will continue to fight for our nation's pork farmers and American families against misguided regulations," Hays said.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito,Brett Kavanaughand Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in part from the Gorsuch opinion.
"I would find that the petitioners have plausibly alleged a substantial burden against interstate commerce and would therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case for the court below to decide whether petitioners have stated a claim," Roberts wrote.
Last year, ABC News gota rare inside lookat three commercial pork farms on both sides of the Prop 12 debate.
"When you need to make changes just to comply with the California market, I'm very worried about what our long-term success would be," third-generation Minnesota pork farmer Mike Boerboom said at the time.
His farm, which raises more than 400,000 pigs a year, is not Prop 12 compliant. "We've been raising pigs in confinement for 40 years," he said.
The Biden administration took the side of pork farmers, concerned that a single state should not be allowed to excessively disrupt a major American industry.
But even before the Court's decision, there were signs market forces and consumer preferences have nudged producers toward what animal advocates consider more ethical practices.
"We believe that that creates a healthier animal, and a healthier animal equates to healthier product to eat," said John Jovaag of Austin, Minnesota, whose farm is part of the Niman Ranch network of family farmers who specialize in certified "humanely-raised" pigs and other animals.
"They need more farmers doing it this way to meet the demand," Ruth Jovaag said of rapidly evolving consumer preferences. "There's not enough supply."
Major pork producers likeHormeland Tyson Foods -- who initially opposed Prop 12 -- say they have been preparing to fully comply with at least parts of the law because of growing demand for humanely raised meat. Hormel says many of its products are already Prop 12 compliant.
"This is a truly watershed moment for animal welfare," said Chris Oliviero, general manager of Niman Ranch in a statement on the Supreme Court decision. "Since day one, Niman Ranch has been one of the only companies to ban the use of crates for raising hogs and today our more than 500 independent family farmer partners proudly raise their pigs 100% crate free."
Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S., which helped enact and defend Proposition 12, said the law is now "the nation's strongest farm animal welfare law."
"We're delighted that the Supreme Court has upheld California Proposition 12," Block said in a statement, "and made clear that preventing animal cruelty and protecting public health are core functions of our state governments."
