See this Vox article for a good primer on why this case is important:
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross — hinges on a simple question: Can California set its own standards for how pigs are treated on farms, even when they’re raised in other states?
The case centers, quite literally, on how sausage gets made in the US. Each year, over 6 million female breeding pigs, or sows, are raised in “gestation crates” — narrow metal crates that confine the pigs so tightly they’re unable to turn around for the duration of their four-month pregnancies (and they have about four pregnancies in their three- to four-year lifetimes). As the pioneering animal welfare scientist Temple Grandin once put it, the crates are akin to forcing a human to live much of their life in an airline seat.
The American Public Health Association says confining pigs so intensively also increases their stress levels and weakens their immune systems, which makes them more susceptible to infectious disease. (And given the ease with which some zoonotic viruses can pass from swine to humans, that threatens us as well.)
In 2018, over 62 percent of California voters supported a state ballot measure called Proposition 12 that would ban the crates and require sows be raised with at least 24 square feet of space. Importantly, the measure applied whether or not the pigs had been raised in California, so all whole, uncooked pork sold in the state would be required to be produced according to California’s standard. Given the vast size of the state’s market, it’s having a transformative effect for pigs across the country — just as California’s stricter emissions standards for automobiles have changed the way cars are made nationwide.
The law has similar provisions for cage-free eggs and crate-free veal, which have already gone into effect — the challenge in the Supreme Court only covers pork, which will go into effect in five months.
See also this question on Metaculus:
I will likely resolve according to however Metaculus decides this question, unless anyone presents a better-specified resolution criteria.
Close date updated to 2023-12-26 11:59 pm
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ899 | |
| 2 | Ṁ547 | |
| 3 | Ṁ185 | |
| 4 | Ṁ152 | |
| 5 | Ṁ113 |
This should resolve NO to match the linked metaculus market: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-california-humane-pig-confinement-law-2023-05-11/
@SneakySly It's actually a really complicated interaction of Commerce Clause precedent. The fact that Californian legislators have explicitly stated they intended for the bill to alter the behavior of out-of-state producers is likely to be a focal point for the oral arguments. The state's rights in question might be the rights of other states to set their own production standards without getting strongarmed by CA's larger population. I don't expect a full repeal even with a favorable ruling for the petitioners, so I think "overturn" is going to depend a bit on the judgment of the market maker even in that event.
