The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld part of a California animal welfare law, ruling that the state’s restrictions on pork sales do not violate the constitution’s interstate trade protections.

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the constitution leaves it to states and their voters to decide what products will be sold there. He said these questions should not be decided by federal judges.

“Companies that choose to sell products in different states normally have to comply with the laws of those different states,” he said. “While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the kinds of chops California merchants are allowed to sell are not on that list.”

In 2018, 63% of California voters approved Proposition 12, which banned the sale of eggs or meat that comes from the extreme confinement of laying hens, breeding pigs, or veal calves.

The law was due to

came into full force last year, but pork producers went to court to challenge the provisions affecting their industry.

It involved the practice of keeping breeding pigs in tight metal cages where they cannot turn around or lie down, sometimes trying to chew on the metal bars out of frustration.

California law required larger pens or open areas where

the

sows could move freely.

The court has long been skeptical of using the constitution to strike down state laws. That authority rests on a provision that allows Congress to regulate commerce between states.

In the past, the court has used the provision to strike down state laws that protect domestic companies from competition or otherwise discriminate against the free flow of interstate commerce.

In this case, National Pork Producers vs. Ross, the pork industry noted that 99% of pork

meat

sold in California is produced elsewhere, so the burden of the law would largely be felt by other states.

While some of the largest meat packers, including Hormel

foods

and Tyson

foods

said they could comply, the National Pork Producers Council said the law would require farmers in Iowa and North Carolina to change the way they raise and cage their breeding pigs.

To comply with California law, breeding pigs would have to be given larger pens in which to stand and turn, or they could be confined in an open area with other pigs. The producers said those changes would increase their costs by 9%.

The pork producers lost in a federal judge in San Diego and

bee

the

US

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said they had no claim of a constitutional violation. But last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the industry’s appeal.

The pork producers’ attorney argued that if the California law were enforced, it would open the door for other states to pursue changes that would.

affect impact

the national economy.

For example, they said Oregon could require products sold there from other states to be made by workers who paid the state’s higher minimum wage, while Texas could require products sold there to be made only by lawful residents of the US.

The Biden administration joined the case on the side of the pork producers, emphasizing a similar argument. California’s Proposition 12 places a significant burden on interstate commerce, said Deputy Attorney General Edwin Kneedler. It invites conflict and retaliation and threatens the balkanization of the national economic union.

California Attorney General Michael Mongan defended the law because it only applied to pork sold in the state and not elsewhere.

California voters chose to pay higher prices to serve their local interest by refusing to provide a market for products they considered morally objectionable and potentially unsafe, he said.