Penn Law Refutes Representative Glenn “GT” Thompson’s Claims on the Supreme Court Ruling on California’s Prop 12
Animal Law Pro Bono Project / Toll Public Interest Center
Nathaniel Edelheit-Rice, Chair November 15, 2023
Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Representative Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA-15), has made public statements about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (“NPPC v. Ross”). Thompson has claimed that the Justices, in their opinion in NPPC v. Ross, affirmatively called on Congress to pass the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (“EATS Act”) or other such legislation that would nullify state laws implicating agriculture in other states. 1 Such statements are false and a gross mischaracterization of the Supreme Court’s decision in NPPC v. Ross, which did not state or imply that Congress support or pass the EATS Act or otherwise limit the power of state laws implicating agriculture in other states.
In NPCC v. Ross, pork producer groups challenged the constitutionality of the pork provisions within California’s Proposition 12 (“Prop. 12”). 2 Prop. 12 requires all pork sold in California to have been raised under certain minimum cruelty standards. Prop. 12 requirements apply to pork products produced in-state and out-of-state. The case was decided on May 11, 2023, with the Supreme Court finding that Prop. 12 is not a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as out-of-state industry was not discriminated against. 3 The Court dismissed the pork producer groups’ claims. Prop. 12 remains in effect.
Thompson has claimed that the majority opinion in NPCC v. Ross additionally called on Congress to act in a way to prevent a similar outcome to the decision in future. 4 Thompson claims that three justices only agreed to join the majority decision because they are “tired of doing Congress’ work”. 5 Thompson also claims these justices “said [Prop. 12] needs to be fixed, and the farm bill is the place to address this”. 6 Thompson’s argument is that while the majority of Justices found that Prop. 12 was constitutional, this same majority, on a policy level, was opposed to state laws affecting the agricultural products of another, and have affirmatively required Congress to redress the law on the subject, something the EATS Act is poised to do. Such an argument, however, is not supported by the text of the opinion, nor convention on how the Judiciary operates within the system of checks and balances.
The majority opinion in NPCC v. Ross never expresses a “need” for Congressional action, as Thompson purports. The Court merely states that “Congress may seek to exercise [its Commerce Clause] power to regulate interstate trade of pork, much as it has done with various other products”. 7 The Court is requiring nothing of Congress, merely stating the undisputed fact that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court also notes that the pork producers in this case remain “free to petition Congress to intervene” after the conclusion of the case. 8 Again, the Court is not requiring any action from Congress, here merely expressing a standard next course of action for dismissed parties. Nowhere in its decision in NPCC v. Ross does the Supreme Court direct, command, or tell Congress that it must or should preempt Prop. 12 with the EATS Act or any other measure. Additionally, the Supreme Court does not generally direct actions of Congress. As a separate and co-equal branch of government with the Legislative branch, the Judiciary branch determines the boundaries of congressional authorities and permits potential options for Congress, but does not command Congress to undertake any actions. 9
Thompson’s claims that the Supreme Court compelled Congress to act have no grounding, in the NPCC v. Ross majority opinion or elsewhere. Suggestions that the Supreme Court intends for or requires that the EATS Act, or any other legislation that disqualifies state laws implicating out of state agriculture, be passed by Congress is a gross mischaracterization that has no basis in reality. Such an argument from Thompson or any other person should be understood as false and not relied upon.
1 During a House Committee on Agriculture Farm Bill Listening Session on August 2, 2023, Thompson stated “That’s CA trying to dictate how farming practices (sic). Our farmers did not want 13 states when they started out having trade wars. What that would do to the economy will wreck it. The complexity that would create - they certainly wouldn’t want 50 states in trade wars. And so, uh, we are following the advice, the advice, the guidance I guess, the opinions, that were published by the Supreme court on that case, which said, and it was the three, three justices that made the difference that allowed Prop 12 to stand. They let it stand if you read the opinion they let it stand because they’re tired of doing Congress’ work. And they said this needs to be fixed, and the farm bill is the place to address this. And as the justices are tired of doing - the judicial branch is tired of doing the work of the legislative branch, so we will be addressing the Prop. 12 provisions.” House Committee on Agriculture, Chairman Thompson Hosts Farm Bill Listening Session in Minnesota (August 2, 2023).
2 National Pork Producers Council et al. v. Ross, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, et al., 143 S. Ct. 1142 (2023).
3 Id.4 Chairman Thompson Hosts Farm Bill Listening Session in Minnesota (2023).
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 143 S. Ct. at 1152 (emphasis added)
8 Id. at 1160 (emphasis added)
9 U.S. Const. art. III §§ 1-2
To download a PDF of the letter CLICK HERE