SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. — On June 25, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal from the Iowa Pork Producers Association (IPPA) looking to reverse California’s Proposition 12 decision.

The appellate court affirmed the previous district court decision to dismiss IPPA’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

IPPA claimed in its filing that Prop 12 was unconstitutional, violating the dormant Commerce Clause.  

The court countered that argument, saying Prop 12 does not discriminate against out-of-state pork producers. The court reasoned that because the statute treats all private companies the same, it does not discriminate against interstate commerce.

Additionally, the court found the argument for Prop 12’s excessive burden on interstate commerce to be inadequate. The judges did not believe the fact that an establishment engaged in interstate commerce will face added costs as a result of compliance is enough to claim a substantial burden on interstate commerce.

IPPA also alleged that Prop 12 conflicts with the Packers and Stockyards Act by granting favor to California pork producers, who have had more time to comply with the requirements of Prop 12. However, the court disagreed, saying the law does not require packers and wholesalers to show preference to pork producers based on their location, rather it prohibits them from selling non-compliant pork in California regardless of where it originated.

Filed alongside the appellate court’s judgment, Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan wrote a concurring opinion, in which she noted a single underlying rationale in a previous case that could give credence to one of IPPA’s claims.  

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the judges were divided on defining a plausible substantial interstate commerce burden. Callahan wrote that based off that case, she believes the majority of district court judges would find Prop 12 to impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce, as alleged by IPPA.