The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) begins its 2022-2023 term Monday, and two of the cases it will consider will be closely watched by U.S. agriculture, particularly National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).
The most important for pork producers is NPPC vs. Ross, the case against California's Proposition 12, which bans the sale in California of pork from hogs born to sows raised in pens anywhere that do not comply with the state's prescriptive animal housing standards.
NPPC and the American Farm Bureau Federation on October 11 will present to the Supreme Court oral arguments that California's 2018 ballot measure violates the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate trade among the states and restricts states from regulating commerce outside their borders. Because more than 99% of the country's sows live outside of California and the state accounts for nearly 15% of the domestic pork market, Proposition 12 would have the effect of dictating the pork production practices of hog farmers in other states.
The other case, Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), involves "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) and EPA's jurisdiction over private lands that contain "wetlands." The Sacketts, who want to build on land they own in Idaho, are asking the Supreme Court to clarify EPA's authority by adopting a test - proposed by four of the justices in a 2006 case - that would subject wetlands to regulation only if they have a "continuous surface water connection to regulated waters."
EPA previously proposed, and may do so again, a broad definition of WOTUS - "regulated waters" - to include upstream waters and intermittent and ephemeral streams such as the kind farmers use for drainage and irrigation. It also would have covered lands adjacent to such waters.
Editor’s Take:
Both of the cases mentioned in this article could have a huge impact on American agriculture in the future. The California Prop 12 case could force pork producers from other states to follow California’s regulations, thus, costing them billions in additional expenses or restricting their market access. Either way, it could be devastating to all U.S. producers and California’s consumers.
The WOTUS case is a dispute over the authority of EPA to broadly, or more narrowly, apply the Clean Water Act. The broader interpretation preferred by EPA and environmental groups would provide the agency with jurisdiction over extremely small ponds and, in some instances, mud puddles. The narrower interpretation restricts EPA’s authority to navigable waters and tributaries, much closer aligned with what Congress intended. This dispute has been on-going for several years and needs to be settled once and for all.
We certainly hope that the rulings bode well for agriculture and that the industry is spared any additional expense or regulation. We will keep you informed…
