Supreme Court saves California’s bacon with this ruling

Left-wing activists, backed by Democratic senators, continue to stir fabricated ethics debates in the Supreme Court. Their latest demands call for investigations of individual judges and the creation of a judicial morality watchdog, following previous proposals to pack courts to change ideological direction.

While dodging this latest attack, the judges have recently demonstrated yet again that they are defying leftist cartoonist portrayals of them as simple partisans. Even though the case they decided focused on the little piglet, it contained far more important questions about the proper role of the courts in a divided government system.

of National Pork Producers Council vs. Ross, the court faced the latest in California’s endless drive to regulate every little detail of business and the environment. In 2018, California, with support from almost two-thirds of voters, adopted an animal welfare measure that would ban the sale of pork anywhere it comes from unless farmers comply with Sacramento standards.

California has about 12 percent of the US population and 14.5 percent of the economy, but it produces virtually no pork. California law seeks to regulate pork production across the country because producers cannot economically build two separate businesses, one for California and one for the rest of the country.

False Leftist Attack on Thomas Judiciary Is Part of Pressure Campaign to Undermine Supreme Court

Seeing everything through a partisan lens, left-wing critics of the court have three Donald Trump-appointed judges and three Bush-two-appointed judges to side with business over California’s soft greens. I would expect a court to be held. Under the “dormant commerce clause,” federal courts discriminate against interstate commerce and impose undue burdens on out-of-state businesses in exchange for little local benefit, in the judges’ view. revoked state law.

Nevertheless, a majority of pork producers, led by conservative judges, supported California’s piglet protection. The court’s ruling, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, marked an important victory over the principle that voters in each state, rather than unelected federal judges, determine which products can be sold within their borders. This conclusion is a great confirmation of the enduring values ​​of American federalism.

The court’s ruling, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, is a triumph of principles that determine the products voters in each state can sell within its borders. (Erin Schaff/New York Times via AP, Poole, Files)

If Congress, which has the power to regulate interstate commerce, has established national standards, California’s rules would be null and void. But despite repeated calls from pork producers to intervene, Congress remained silent. Judge Gorsuch ruled that, absent Congressional action, voters in each state, not federal courts, would decide how their markets would operate.

Supreme Court sided with photographer who sued Andy Warhol Estate in copyright dispute

The enactors intended to create unions similar to free trade zones where goods, services and people could come and go without the interference of state tariffs and trade barriers. This constitutional policy has contributed greatly to our nation’s prosperity and created the interdependence that has strengthened our alliance.

But the enactors also intended that each state continue to draw its own policy on a range of local concerns, such as local health, safety, and morality. Even state policies that affect interstate commerce, such as lockdowns imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, can be effective. National unity would have to yield to each state’s right to promote local interests and values.

But Congress rarely uses its powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause to pre-empt state laws that violate domestic markets. The Supreme Court has long assumed that role, with no clear backing from the text of the Constitution.

Courts generally held that states’ actions were unconstitutional when they restricted interstate commerce to protect domestic businesses from out-of-state competitors. It found that such unacceptable economic discrimination occurs both when it is explicit and when the state cannot provide a reasonable explanation for the burden it places on interstate commerce.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINIONS NEWSLETTER

But Gorsuch and the majority argued that the courts should exercise their powers in this context rashly, calling for “great care” before courts can overrule policy choices democratically made by states. he wrote.

Congress can also pass laws that invalidate California or authorize courts to reenforce the dormant commerce clause if the state interferes harmfully with the domestic market. Until then, however, the court will withdraw from the activity that has led it to review every part of the state economic law that could restrict interstate trade.

pork producer It will have a significant impact on subsequent events. A major cause of the polarization that plagues the country is the excessive concentration of power in Washington, DC. For most of the past 90 years, the Supreme Court has enabled that process.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But a country like ours, home to 340 million different people, needs a great deal of pluralism to survive and thrive. There doesn’t have to be a single, one-size-fits-all national answer to whether animal cruelty is more important or milder than cheap pork sold at the grocery store. Although the verdict was not unanimous (and most of the dissent was from “conservatives”), the court wisely allowed California to go its own way.

Pork producers were not only a victory for federalism, but a victory for pluralism as our society should embrace it.

Click here to read more articles by John Yu

John Yu is a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. Robert and John are the authors of “.A politically incorrect guide to the Supreme Court.“