Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

High Court Approves California’s Pork Production Standards

by May 12, 2023
May 12, 2023

Walter Olson

The Supreme Court has ruled that California may prohibit the in‐​state sale of pork raised out of state by methods it deems inhumane, rejecting a constitutional challenge raised by pork producers who had argued that the law would badly disrupt the economies of other states. In so doing the Court appears to have significantly whittled down the scope of the so‐​called Dormant Commerce Clause, a clause that has been drawn skepticism from Justices including the late Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. While the new decision is a complex one with multiple opinions, it appears to give the green light to a wide array of state environmental and consumer regulations that may inflict significant economic harm on other states but do not discriminate between in‐​state and out‐​of‐​state producers.

Cato had filed a brief urging the Court to grant review in this case to bring some clarity to the application of the Dormant Commerce Clause, given the highly interstate nature of the market— almost all pork Californians consume is produced in other states—and the substantial burdens of the measure, which include the prospect that California agricultural agents will travel around the country to ensure that farmers in other states comply with California law. Ilya Shapiro, writing with Frank Garrison in 2017, described the clause as “the idea that states can’t impose regulations that impede interstate commerce even if Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden them to do so.…While the commerce clause has been invoked since the New Deal as a warrant for nearly unlimited federal power, its inverse actually seems more faithful to a founding document concerned with the free flow of commerce throughout the nation.”

As Jonathan Adler writes, “the decision complicates the already questionable ‘Roberts Court is pro‐​business’ narrative, by demonstrating (yet again) that when conservative jurisprudential commitments conflict with corporate interests, the former prevail. Combined with decisions such as Virginia Uranium v. Warren, National Pork Producers shows that business groups cannot depend on conservative justices to support their challenges to state regulations.”

And a comment from Jeff Kosseff: “Until yesterday, I had been somewhat optimistic about using the Dormant Commerce Clause to avoid a state‐​by‐​state patchwork of internet laws. But the National Pork Producers opinion has pretty much eliminated that optimism.”

Cato has filed briefs in Dormant Commerce Clause cases involving state rental car taxes calculated to burden out‐​of‐​staters, Colorado’s attempt to regulate how power imported from out of state is generated, and Tennessee’s attempt to reserve the issuance of liquor licenses to those who have lived in the state for a long time.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
ReasonTV Lampoons the Jones Act
next post
Top Strategies to Outperform This Market

You may also like

Dulles Airport Metro Extension Not Paying Off

November 1, 2023

Friday Feature: Tapestry Academy and Microschool Florida

July 14, 2023

Bretton Woods Committee Calls for CBDCs under BIS...

December 15, 2023

New Protectionist Bill Places Corporate Interests above Welfare...

May 21, 2024

Juneteenth: A Jubilee of Freedom

June 19, 2024

Housing Subsidies Boost Costs

June 9, 2025

What Is the Opportunity Cost of State AI...

June 10, 2025

Housing Deregulation as Poverty Policy

May 2, 2024

Trump Issues Executive Order Dealing Blow to OECD...

January 21, 2025

Trump Indicted Over Attempt To Remain In Power

August 2, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • ThinCats hits record lending levels with £381m despite challenging UK business climate

      July 8, 2025
    • Flight of the non-doms: how worried should Labour be about the super‑rich leaving the UK?

      July 8, 2025
    • UK house prices stall in June as stamp duty change and weak economy hit confidence

      July 8, 2025
    • Elon Musk connects with indie Andrew Yang on billionaire former Trump ally’s third party push

      July 8, 2025
    • Data Security Posture Management – The Next Big Data Solution Your Business Needs (And How to Get Started)

      July 7, 2025
    • Bondi under siege after DOJ reveals no Epstein client list

      July 7, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,413)
    • Investing (2,105)
    • Politics (15,958)
    • Stocks (3,192)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved