Background
California’s Proposition 12 was in the news again this year, as we waited to see if the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear a second case challenging the state law. Anticipation of a high court ruling was extinguished on June 30th, 2025, when the Court decided not to hear the case brought by Iowa Pork Producers Association. As a result, Proposition 12 remains unchanged and in force, requiring producers and processors selling in California to comply with its standards.
Opponents and supporters of Proposition 12 and similar measures are not likely to stop arguing their causes. This begs the question – what’s next? It seems likely that any intervention would come from legislation, potentially included in a pared-down version of a 2025 farm bill.
This article summarizes the recent Supreme Court action and the underlying Ninth Circuit opinion in Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta (IPPA). It also provides a summary of recent and relevant congressional activity, including bills introduced to invalidate Proposition 12 and similar state measures.
What is Proposition 12?
California’s Proposition 12[1], passed by California voters in 2018, amended California’s Health and Safety Code to require specific housing standards, different than industry practice, for breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens if products from those animals are sold in California.[2] It mandates that breeding pigs (sows) must have a minimum of 24 square feet of usable floor space per pig; veal calves must each have at least 43 square feet per calf, and laying hens must be housed in cage free housing in spaces that provide usable space that is not less than what is required by the 2017 edition of the United Egg Producers’ Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg-Laying Flocks: Guidelines for Cage-Free Housing – one to 1.5 square feet per hen depending on the housing system. In addition, each calf, pig, and laying hen must be able to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely.
The law prohibits the sale in California of shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole pork meat, or veal from animals confined in spaces smaller than these standards, regardless of whether the animals are raised in California or in another state.[3] Violators are subject to civil and criminal penalties.[4]
Proposition 12 was codified in Chapter 13.8 of California’s Health and Safety Code. The California Department of Food and Agriculture and Animal Health and Food Safety Services issued regulations in 2022.[5]
While California’s Proposition 12 is the focus of the recent litigation summarized in this article, similar measures have been introduced or enacted in other states.
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
To understand IPPA, it is helpful to review National Pork Producers Council v Ross. In 2023, the Court granted review in National Pork Producers Council v Ross[6] (NPPC) and upheld Proposition 12 in a fractured opinion. Decided on May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld Proposition 12 in NPPC, rejecting the argument that it violates the dormant Commerce Clause. In a fractured opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of NPPC’s claims. See this CALT article for a detailed summary of the opinion. While the Court ruled against NPPC, it seemed to leave the door open for future dormant Commerce Clause challenges to Proposition 12 if a petitioner could allege discrimination against out-of-state producers, a core tenet of the Court’s dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. NPPC had not, and in fact had conceded that the law imposes the same burdens on in-state pork producers that it imposes on out-of-state producers. IPPA attempted to pick up where NPPC had left off in regard to this claim.
Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta
IPPA filed its complaint on November 9, 2021, in California state court, arguing that Proposition 12 is unconstitutional and seeking to block its enforcement. The case was removed to federal court, ultimately landing in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which dismissed all claims on February 28, 2022. IPPA appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Like the NPPC, IPPA claimed that Proposition 12 is unconstitutional because it violates the dormant Commerce Clause. IPPA also asserted claims for violation of the Due Process Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In addition, IPPA argued that Proposition 12 is preempted by the Packers and Stockyards Act under the Supremacy Clause.
At the time of IPPA’s appeal, the Supreme Court had granted review in NPPC, but arguments had not yet taken place. The Ninth Circuit stayed IPPA proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision. After NPPC was decided, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay, heard arguments, and on June 25, 2024, affirmed the District Court’s decision to dismiss IPPA’s case for failure to state a claim.
In an unpublished opinion, Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta,[7] the Ninth Circuit rejected each of IPPA’s claims.
Dormant Commerce Clause
The Ninth Circuit first addressed IPPA’s dormant Commerce Clause claim, stating “[i]f a statute discriminates against out-of-state entities on its face, in its purpose, or in its practical effect, it is unconstitutional unless it serves a legitimate local purpose, and this purpose could not be served as well by available nondiscriminatory means.”
The Court found that Proposition 12 does not discriminate on its face because it treats all producers the same.
It found no discriminatory purpose, concluding that the law is aimed at phasing out practices that protect public health and reduce foodborne illness.
The Court rejected the argument that Proposition 12 had a discriminatory effect against out-of-state producers. IPPA argued that producers had six years to comply with similar confinement requirements imposed by Proposition 2, an earlier law that applied solely to California producers. This allowed producers to spread the cost of compliance over several years. In contrast, out-of-state producers were only given a few weeks to comply. The Court said that although in-state producers may have felt less impact from Proposition 12 because they were already subject to the confinement provisions of Proposition 2, that does not demonstrate that Proposition 12 discriminates against out-of-state producers.
In dismissing IPPC’s Pike argument, the Court relied on its own decision in NPPC, stating that it had previously considered and rejected the same challenge. The Court said that only the result of the Supreme Court’s decision in NPPC is binding because the NPPC decision was fractured, the majority of the Justices did not agree on a single rationale, and no opinion was a logical subset of the other.
In a concurrence, Judge Callahan wrote that she read the NPPC Supreme Court “as supporting the following conclusions: (i) that Proposition 12 is compatible with Pike balancing, and (ii) that IPPA plausibly alleged Proposition 12 imposes a substantial burden on interstate commerce. However, these conclusions do not derive from opinions that are a “logical subset of the other.” Davis, 825 F.3d at 1025 (“[T]he plurality and dissent do not share common reasoning whereby one analysis is a logical subset of the other.” (internal quotations and citations omitted). If they did, I would remand for the district court to decide IPPA’s Pike claim.”
Due Process
IPPA argued that Proposition 12 is unconstitutionally vague, particularly regarding the terms “engage in” and “knowingly,” and that it criminalizes behavior without providing a reasonable opportunity for business owners and operators to know what conduct is prohibited. IPPA also argued that California failed to issue required regulations to clarify. The Court disagreed.
Privileges and Immunities Clause
In rejecting IPPA's argument that Proposition 12 impairs the rights and ability for out of state producers to do business in California, the Court said “[t]o state a claim, IPPA must show that the challenged law treats nonresidents differently from residents and impinges on a fundamental privilege or immunity protected by the Clause.” Since Proposition 12 prohibits all businesses from selling non-complying pork, regardless of where they reside, the out-of-state businesses are on the same footing as those in California.
Preemption by Packers and Stockyards Act
The Packers and Stockyards Act makes it unlawful for any packer or swine contractor to “[m]ake or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect.” 7 U.S.C. § 192(b). IPPA argued that Proposition 12 requires packers and wholesalers to favor in-state producers who have had more time to comply with Proposition 12's confinement requirements due to Proposition 2. The Court said that a federal statute preempts a state law where a party’s compliance with both is impossible or when the state law creates an obstacle to Congress’s objectives. The Court concluded that Proposition 12 did not on its face require packers to favor or disfavor producers based on location, and that IPPA did not allege that out-of-state producers are unable to comply with Proposition 12, thus requiring packers and wholesalers to prefer in-state producers. Therefore, Proposition 12 does not make it impossible to comply with the Packers and Stockyards Act or create an obstacle to its purpose.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
After the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion, the IPPA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to dismiss its claims on the merits and did so by misapplying Supreme Court precedent with respect to what is binding law within a fractured Supreme Court decision. Specifically, IPPA argued that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in National Pork Producers Council v Ross in which a majority of five Justices agreed that NPPC adequately alleged a Pike claim. The Attorney General of Iowa filed an amicus brief on behalf of Iowa and 22 other states, in support of Iowa Pork Producers, urging the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit. The brief emphasized the importance of state sovereignty in regulating agriculture and asserted that Proposition 12 undermines the expertise of state regulators to establish safe and humane standards for raising pork.
On June 30, 2025, the United States Supreme Court denied the Iowa Pork Producers Association’s (IPPA) petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court record notes that Justice Kavanaugh would have granted the petition.The denial effectively ends the litigation IPPA initiated in 2021. As a result, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to dismiss IPPA’s case stands, and pork producers and processors must continue to comply with Proposition 12’s requirements for meat sold in California.This was the third time the Supreme Court was asked to review a challenge to Proposition 12. The court denied certiorari in North American Meat Institute v. Becerra.
What's Ahead?
Opponents of Proposition 12 continue efforts to defeat the law and preclude similar laws. Supporters of Proposition 12 and similar regulations continue efforts to invalidate the opponent’s arguments. The following is a short synopsis of continuing efforts.
U.S. v California – filed July 9, 2025
In July, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the State of California, pertaining to the restrictions that the state’s AB 1437 and Proposition 12 impose on laying hens and egg sales.[10] The complaint alleges that the state standards are preempted by the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (“EPICA”), and that States may not impose any additional or different requirements, even if they are non-conflicting, if they are within the scope of the EPIA. The case is currently in the pleadings stage, with the defendant’s response due September 10, 2025.
House Agriculture Hearing – held July 23, 2025
On the legislative side, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on July 23, 2025 - An Examination of the Implications of Proposition 12. Five witnesses testified: an Iowa farmer, an NPPC vice president and Ohio pork producer, an NPPC economist, the Latino Restaurant Association’s executive director, a Texas A & M professor and extension specialist, and the American Farm Bureau Federation’s deputy general counsel. Witnesses testified on the legal background of Proposition 12 and other state animal confinement laws, the impact on producers and consumers, the potential effects and scope of proposed legislation to prevent states from imposing out-of-state production standards as a condition of in-state sales, and Congress’s role in the matter. Specific topics discussed include economic burdens on farmers to comply with housing standards, cost to producers and processors to segregate animals and product by sale state, impact of potential legislation on farmers who already made expenditures to comply with housing requirements, impact on industry consolidation as well as family farms and small farms, the effect on consumer pork prices, and concerns about market stability and a regulatory patchwork.
2025 Farm Bill?
The hearing may be a precursor to including legislation in a 2025 farm bill. The last full farm bill was passed in 2018. To keep on schedule, a new farm bill would have been passed in 2023 as several programs were set to expire on September 30, 2023. The 2018 bill was extended multiple times, ultimately until September 30, 2025.
On July 4, 2025, Public Law 119-21, commonly referred to as the Big Beautiful Bill, was enacted, and includes certain provisions typically included in a full farm bill. A summary can be found in CALT’s article, Reviewing the Agricultural Provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Farm bill provisions not addressed by Public Law 119-21, including temporary suspensions of outdated permanent law that prevent what is known as the dairy cliff, still need to be addressed by Congress in separate legislation, potentially in a pared-down or “skinny” farm bill.
It is plausible that a 2025 farm bill could include Proposition 12-related legislation. While a 2023 or 2024 farm bill never passed, both the House and the Senate ag committees released proposed text. The Senate version did not include Proposition 12-related provisions. The House version, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024, included Section 12007, Ensuring the Free Movement of Livestock-Derived Products in Interstate Commerce, described in more detail below. Section 12007 was discussed frequently during the July 23, 2025 committee hearing. Section 12007 text was introduced as standalone bill H.R. 4673, the Save Our Bacon Act, on July 23, 2025.
As with any legislation, a new farm bill - skinny or not - would need to be approved in both the House and Senate. Measures to limit state control on out-of-state production were proposed in both the 2014 and the 2018 Farm Bills, but in both instances were not included in enacted legislation. On July 14, 2025, 32 senators sent a letter to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chair and Ranking Member objecting to the inclusion of the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (S. 1326) (discussed below) or similar legislation in the next farm bill, stating that it “would harm America’s small farmers and infringe on the fundamental rights of states to establish laws and regulations within their own borders.”
Proposed Legislation Recap
A summary of recently proposed legislation that would prevent states from regulating agricultural production outside state borders as a condition of sales is included below. Each bill differs in scope and remedies.
Save Our Bacon Act, H.R. 4673
- Introduced in the House on July 23, 2025
- Text is identical to Sec. 12007 of the House Agriculture Committee’s proposed farm bill, H.R.8467 - Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.
Ensuring the Free Movement of Livestock-Derived Products in Interstate Commerce
- Included as Section 12007 of the House Agriculture Committee’s proposed farm bill, H.R.8467 - Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.
- Would prohibit states and local governments from enacting, as a condition for sale or consumption, a standard of production that is different from or in addition to the standards in the production state.
- Applies to standards of production for covered livestock, defined as any domestic animal raised for slaughter for human consumption or products manufactured for human consumption derived from the processing of milk. Animals raised for egg production are not included in covered livestock.
- Would not restrict regulations on the movement, harvesting, or further processing of covered livestock.
Food Security and Farm Protection Act, S.1326
- Introduced in the Senate on April 8, 2025
- Previously introduced in 2023 as the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act) H.R. 4417, S.2019
- Would prohibit State/local governments from imposing standards on the preharvest production of agricultural products if the standards are in addition to federal law or the state/local laws in the state where production occurs.
- Agricultural products include “agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products, livestock and poultry, bees, forest products, fish and shellfish, and any products thereof, including processed and manufactured products, and any and all products raised or produced on farms and any processed or manufactured product thereof.”
- Gives a private right of action to producers, consumers, and others to challenge a regulation, seek damages for economic loss, and move for a preliminary injunction.
- Expands the venue options for plaintiffs to file a case to include the federal district court where the plaintiff is affected, resides, or does business.
- Shifts the burden of proof for preliminary injunction to the defendant state/local government – requires court to issue a preliminary injunction on plaintiff’s motion and keep in place until the court issues a decision, unless defendant/state can show that it is likely to prevail on the merits at trial and that it would be irreparably harmed by the injunction.
Protecting Interstate Commerce for Livestock Producers Act, S.3382
- Introduced in the Senate on November 30, 2023
- Would prohibit the enforcement of any state/local law that regulates the raising, production, use, transportation, importation, sale, or distribution of any livestock or product thereof, if the law is in addition to, disproportionate or in conflict with the laws in the state in which they are raised.
- The term "livestock" is defined as:
- all farm-raised animals (section 10403 of the Animal Health Protection Act 7 U.S.C. 8302);
- cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry, equine animals used for food or in the production of food, fish used for food, wild or domesticated game, or other nonplant life (section 2103 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502); and
- cattle, elk, reindeer, bison, horses, deer, sheep, goats, swine, poultry (including egg-producing poultry), llamas, alpacas, live fish, crawfish, and other animals that— are part of a foundation herd (including producing dairy cattle) or offspring; or are purchased as part of a normal operation (section 602 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 7 U.S.C 1471).
- Gives any individual or entity harmed by the law a private right of action for injunctive relief.
Conclusion
Discussions on the impact of Proposition 12 and similar laws continue. Opponents have not found success in the courts so far. A successful ruling in the recent preemption case filed by the United States could invalidate restrictions on laying hens. Any other change would likely stem from new legislation. A 2025 pared-down farm bill may be the logical vehicle for such legislation, but it would require House and Senate approval. The scope of potential legislation is likely to be a significant part of the discussion.
[1] Proposition 12 is codified in Cal. Health & Safety Code, Ch. 13.8, §§ 25990-25994; see also Text of Proposed Laws - Voter Information Guide November 6, 2018, page 88.
[2] Cal. Health & Safety Code, Ch. 13.8, §§ 25990-25992.
[3] The restriction on the sale of shell eggs in California existed prior to Proposition 12, based on similar housing requirements that except for laying hens, pertained only to California producers. Ch. 14, §25996
[4] Cal. Health & Safety Code, Ch. 13.8, §25993; Ch. 14, §25996
[5] 3 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 1320 – 1327.
[6] National Pork Producers v Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023)
[7] Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta, No. 22-55336 (9th Cir. 2024)
[8] Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
[9] Supreme Court of the United States Docket, Iowa Pork Producers Association v Bonta
[10] United States v. The State of California (2:25-cv-06230).