The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a landmark ruling upholding a California animal cruelty law and, with it, the authority of state and local governments to regulate what is sold within their borders. While the judges were splintered on the proper reasoning and framing of the case, the ruling rejected an argument that would have greatly weakened the state’s power to protect its residents from pollution and much more.

The case involved a California initiative, Proposition 12, which prohibits the sale of meat from pigs that have been cruelly confined. The law, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2018, defines confinement as cruel if it prevents a pig from lying down, standing up, fully stretching [its] limbs, or rotate freely.

The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation have challenged the law on the basis of an important but relatively secretive principle of constitutional law known as the dormant trade clause. It provides that state and local laws are unconstitutional if they place an undue burden on interstate commerce. The Constitution does not say so, but the Supreme Court has articulated and applied the doctrine early in the country’s history.

Barriers to trade between the states were a major impetus for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. For example, states with ports charged large fees to landlocked states to gain access to these states, eliciting retaliatory action from those states. The idea behind the Dormant Commerce Clause, derived from the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce under Article

1, i,

is that free trade between states is essential and that every producer should have access to all domestic markets.

Based on that principle, the pig producers argued that Prop

position.

12 violates the Constitution by impermissibly taxing interstate commerce. Most pork sold in California is produced outside the state, much of it in Iowa, so prosecutors argued the state was unconstitutionally attempting to regulate trade outside its borders.

Had the Supreme Court accepted this argument, the implications would have been enormous. For example, California probably wouldn’t be able to enact stricter emission standards for vehicles because most of them are manufactured in other states. A recently passed New York law banning natural gas heating and stoves in new buildings may not be allowed because the fossil fuel is produced almost entirely in other states. A state may not be able to prevent the use of a pesticide produced elsewhere. The examples are endless.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court followed established principles by denying the California initiative’s challenge. Although the judges wrote several concurring and dissenting opinions, they found sufficient agreement on the basic framework for analysis.

One principle

key central

according to the ruling, that is a state or local law

is presumed unconstitutional if treating in-staters and out-of-staters differently is presumed unconstitutional. For example,

from Michigan

for example, performed one

law allowing in-state but not out-of-state wineries to sell directly to consumers through the mail

was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. deemed that law and similar state protectionist laws unconstitutional. That kind of discrimination is exactly what the dormant trade clause is supposed to prevent.

If the court

has

previously explained, the Constitution prohibits the enforcement of state laws driven by “economic protectionism, that is, regulatory measures designed to favor the state’s economic interests by taxing out-of-state competitors.” Californias Prop

position.

12 is not discriminatory in this way. It applies the same standards for pork sold

through within the state

both in state and non-state enterprises. In fact, the challengers did not claim that California law is discriminatory or protectionist.

The Supreme Court has long held that a

non-discriminatory

state law

that is not discriminatory

should be maintained unless the burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to its benefits. Several judges noted that there is no indication that the California law would place a significant burden on interstate commerce or that it is clearly excessive in light of the state’s interest in ensuring that pork is humanely produced. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that California officials and voters may regulate what is sold in California, as long as they treat producers in and out of state equally.

Under the Constitution, Congress could use its power to regulate interstate commerce to override Prop

position.

12 and Decrees National Standards for Pork Production. But

unless and

as long as that is not the case, states should be able to decide for themselves. As Judge Neil

m

Gorsuch wrote for the majority: While the Constitution deals with many weighty issues, the kinds of chops California merchants are allowed to sell are not on that list.

The decision is not remarkable in that

the feeling

that it follows decades of precedent. Its importance is that it did not impose any significant new restrictions on states

regulatory power, protect animals, the environment and more. But

given how easily Roberts’ court has abandoned precedent and ruled in favor of business and against regulation,

it was the enforcement of California law

remarkable

and welcome. crucial. Erwin Chemerinsky is a contributing writer for Opinion and the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. His latest book is

Worse than nothing

: The dangerous fallacy of originalism.