California argue the law only applied to instate sales. The oral argument or two hours. The argument hearst this morning in case 21 for 60, eight National Pork producers versus ross. Mr. Bishop . Mr. Hief justice, may it please the court, the fact we alleged or seem to be true, but this is a decision here. The state clas the process violates the Commerce Clause, because its an extra territorial regulation that conditions pork sales on ouof state farmers, adopting california preferred forming that these. For no valid safety reasons. Proposition 12 also fails tip because it burdens interstate commerce for no local benefit. California to change farming methods everywhere, to quote, prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme animal confinement. That confinement occurs in othetes. California imports 99. 9 of pork. Decisions like baldwin establish that even when the lais triggered only by instate sales, the state may not project its legislative into he states in that wa to do so infringes the territorial automyf the states, and it impede our national commket. No other state makes its farmers has the way that californ ds. Very fmers do. They keep cows an invial pans during the vulnerable brg period, and they provide less 24 square feet of sp in group ends. An farmer doesnt know where pork from cows will be sold, pigs go to a nursery of partsth are so around the world and response for them. In important proposition 12 is lawful, new york will say the pigs had to have 26 inch spa and send insps into farms where these compliances of california do. Oregon can condition imports on workers being paid the minimum wage, and texas cdition sales on the producer employing only lawful u. S. Residents. At that, we have truly a national market. Ers ideas of a i inte the courts questions. Mr. Bishop, when exactly is a state and trust erritorial . Because this, as i read californias law, it is about a product being sold in california. Unlike some of the cases you cite, its not reaching out and regulaing something across state lines or regulating pr well, the test that we sed is that a state law that conditis sales on an out of state business operating in a particular way how does california exa do that . You cannot sell pork in california unless you raise your sows in a particular way out of state. Its a condition on sale. Thats verylittle different from baldwin. Baldwin conditionssale of milk in new york, predicated onthe york rate. E being paid the new nd they did that because they thought it was necessary to pave in order for themto use sy methods on the dairy. Not protecting ation that we interrupt you, iapologize. What if californiasaid a house to be built, according to certainrules by certain dards, with certain products . Hence,excluding products that ade in anotherstate. For example, it says that you cantbuild a house entirely out of. Would you cant import wood from another state a libetate like georgia. Thats just thats different, Justice Thomas. Why is it . Its affecting your product from extraterritorial. A state may been a product, theres no doubt about that. They could be in pork, they convene lumber to be used in building houses. What it cant do is condition sales in the state on a business in another state adopting a particular methods of production. That tramples on the other stat rghts. If you want to import reod into the state . You have to have used certain kind of pesticide to make sure the versed pests dont come in with the firewood. Would that be forbid well, i think you can ban a product thatcontains certain pests. Main versus taylor i think us established this. T you cant, in new york, u cant say any producers that t use approved a particularsticide. This wont always be your answer is, it you c you cant, right. Anytime a staes something that, i say forces, it doesnt r force, but if you want the state market, it forces you. Anytime the state does something that forces you to change production methods in any way that would be a band, [interpreter] then, i think this is almost rule, even for discrimination cases, theres always the safety out if the state can show the rule is necessary. Counsel, can i just say thats our position. Can i j clarify, i perceive a difference in the ruleyoure articulating right now, then in your brief. I just want to make sure i rstand the rules that you i thought your briefs were ting us for a role that a state may not enact laws that have the practical effects of ntrolling conduct outside of the states borders. Maybe im wrong, so you can tell me, then the rules that youre now saying,which is the state law that condition sales on out of state business opng particular way, is prohibited. Which one is . I think our view is, one extraterritorial rule always has that practical effect on commerce. It affects commerce out of state, and it tramples the rights of the state in wh the business is located. I see lta between the questio of whether or not the states regulation controls conduct outside of the state borders,and what seems to be a narroweroposition that you want to parse a rule that , its a stateconditioned sale on an out of state business operating in a particular way. Am i wrong that thats an error . Court has used that controlleds language cases like and baldwin to stan this proposition. That you may not condition state sales on out of state perations. Ishop, you have several arguments, and i gather that your answer i Justice Kagan, badn your extra territoriality, argument, is no. New york cant do that. But how would that play out under your other argument, which is that the pike balancing test would apply . Pike is a factual test. Younsider whats the impact on its commerce. Anyway that burden agai the local interests. But they extraterritorial rule that were proposing does, really operates in that first level, the burden level. What it says is, it clear that a laws that condition le on outate operation changes operation, its always gonna be aificant burden on interstate commerce that if a case th very concerns that the framers had about organization. Suppose it was ng or rhode isl, would it pass a law like this . It would not make any difference. It certainly makes a difference in ind of burden that id. Somebody could ea cut off yoming market. What we are proposing, your nor, a poor sale rule that is conditioned on sales instate. Thatst a matter of per se roller goes to the extraterritorial rule. Pike. Ce alitos asking about right. What im trying to explain is the relationship between extra territoriality and pike, whichat territorial rule establishes per se, that burn ispresent in every case. I out the need to do that. That establishes that there is a substantial burden on interstate . Exactly. Thertainly is, in the case where, the st a if you go to a pipe balancing, then youd also take it i account in a situation like the one that was pote by Justice Kagan, th strain of the stinterests. This cour a very strong interest in preventing a really dangerous product from coming into its border way, taken to appeals. Account on extra territoriality even in cases like oregon waist, where to discriminatory law. This court does consider the safety rationale, offered by the state. Ut the state has to offer a realnon speculativesafety rationale, why is in this pike balancing test reading too much into tooite . Its one paragraph in a short, unanimous opinion. And it relies on three very old cases, baldwin, keely, and brown, well theyre 100 yld. Roundabout. Then involved price fixing or price affirmation. The form of discriminationare agout of state market participants. At least thats how many le in many courts have read them. I confess, im guilty of that o on the tenth circuit. Pike was about. Erstanding what whats wrong with that undeding, especially when the alternative viewlling us appears to be that this courld engage in a freling balancing test. Hala, to protect an economic liberty rathan defer to state regulation on health and safety. Let me make two points, pike ly is a 1989 case. A and brown reman as 1986. These are not ancient pike is an extremelyll established. Presiden are in this t but in all courts. Thats not a question, the question is what it means, and it could either mean,at many lower court products meant. Lng at these very old, statutes, things like that. Broad, that would endow this to weigh eting does california have enough of an rest in pork, compared to lumber, ared to fireworks, ed to whatever you want to come up with. What business do we have an . That the narrow reading would not satisfy the interest of the Commerce Courts the Commerce Court is intended to prevent organization. It was a reaction to organiz rules at th of the constitutional convention. And it was intended to stop interstate strife over these sorts of rules. A narrow rule focused on going to achieve that. What were proposing, this per se rule that we are proposing we dont think its. Now we think its from the ground. Think itsfily rounded. Where is that in pike . Its involvement. With respect to price affirmation and price fixing . Price affirmation ca conceivably be an appropriate limitation in this role because it does not achieve what the Commerce Clause is supposed to achieve. Let me ask you this. Let me ask you how it w you say california could banned pork . Yes. Why does that affect your state commerce . It does affected. But the difference between a ba is that once bands arecommonplace. Their instate focus. All they do is reduce thesize of the market for out of state businesses. Its very different from conditioning a sale on the precise way that and out of statebusiness conducts itself. Butesumably the reason why out of state businesses care about changing production methods is that those production meods will be more costly. And if you are inking about product would be the greatest cost of all. So why would you divide the world in that ay. Were not only talking about costs, wre talking about the impact on state where the business is located. O, iowa only has 00 it has a great interest and how the cows are housed and what california is doing essentially trampling on iowas abilityto say no, your farmers re cost related. Terest that is look, we think that is sufficient and we dont want to do anything more expensive. Its not cost e, it could be morally related. Californias moral ion, moral view that should not be kept this way. It could be matched an iowa by saying the most important thing about house is producing the question from iowa i its an important question. You are making this incredibly costly for us. I dont see how you say thats unlikely. If california can tels and i will have to raise their cows, then iowa can take the moral position, the most important moral thing to do here is to see people onable cost by raising cows using the 350 are suggesting we decide this case on the promise that the interests at stake in iowa and among pork rmrs have nothing to do wit costs . No, t scientists deci this on the basis that i was views on how porc be raised, how are those, are just as whately as calia. But why . I, mean i knoth you dismiss the moral objeon. And i will put it aside. But we scientists the point out there are genuine scientific reasons for th raising of pigs. And your complaint says something ent. But some people reasonably believe that close confinement for from animals increases the likelihood of new diseases emming to humans from animals. Or vice versa. We know that is happening. I also reasonable to think that reducing close ement of pigs may reduce the use of antibiotics icks. Thus reducing the delment of antibiotic resistant bacteria. And, something that the us gestation crate to increase the pre of diseases and pi whats. That carr through two time of slaughter. I know youre gonna tell me theres no scientific proof. But there is certainly a reasonable basis for these people to think we dont think theres a reble basis. Our veterinarians whants as we here are the motion to dismiss. Theres been no opportunity to test these propositions. Thank you counsel. Mr. Er . Oh, im sorry. Juscelito . I think you touched on this in your final comments. Let me make sure about it. Most of your argument seems to be arguing the merits of the extra territoriality arguments and thepike balancing argument to a lesser extent is that the question we have . Here this is supposed to apply . Rd we are well, we have to plausibly allege that tht e sufficient basisfor our legal client. Have to house extra territoriality and one based on pike. We think we have easily pled both an extra territorial regulation and a significant burden oninterstate commerce. D at that point the state has to show th it has good reas for these rules. That whole process has curtailed by the dismissal. We should get a remount in order to make our case. U are cited factual allegations in the amicus briefs submitted inpport of californ. Certainly those t serious consideration. I was any of at evidence in e record here . Think we should be entitled the judgment matter of law, agency ha been proven in the agricultural department. Y looked at the line concluded that the confinement standards, which is what 12 is, confinement standards, are notsed on certificate stific literature. To reduce human foodborne or other when they realized that that was a litigation issue, and they tried to clawed back, the beey could come up with was this. Thatcalifornia voters but it was notunreasonable for them to adopt this law as, a, quote reutionary measure to address anypotential threats. That isnot enough under pike or are extra territoriality to justify a law that has massive effects on interstate commerce. Thank you. Counsel, your complaint acknowledges that pph one 60, consdemand has led roughly 28 opork industry. Not que third, but thats a very high percentage. To convert from dual gestation to Group Housing. To meet the consumer demand, 28 of the try already must be able to trace its pork meat to how indil pigs were housed. Consumer demands it. We have marketed already pork mark organic, cage free, antibiotic, free and raisd agonist equate . I know what that means. I know its fair. Ive seen it in supermarkets. Some tracing is already happening. This is already recognized in your complaint, with all due respect, you taout two different things. 28 of the market uses Group Housing after confirmation of pregnancy. Most critical period for the iual confinement, which is the period after winning, youre missing my point. No but its not 28 . Let me finish question. Let me finish my qu. California is of the market. Its a huge market. But there are peo you have to concede, there are some people who heyre already labeling thems as organic or antibiotic freething free. What is the critical difference . How much o market does the producers in iowa have to control, all of it . No. Just a small part of it and why does it make a difference because no one is forchem to sell to california. They could sell to any other state that they prefer to sell to. Nationwide, 13,500 pigs are slaughtered each that comply or t comply to prop 12. Californiamade 65,000 pigs a day to sfy. So those people are going to go without pork . Half 1 million pigs are slaughtered in thee every day. What is organic, 12 is a tiny on. But it still answered my question. Is the line that we . To say that this is impermissibtrol by californias when its giving oice to say, sell my way, or dont sell my way. If you want to sell my way you can sell here. Because ifu, dont sell in new york. We think ole to vibe frdwin, own, is the one that i have expressed. That violates the Commerce Clause toondition instate sales on out of e producers operating icular way. And ers very good reason for. That the reasons for the adoption o commerce cls in the first. Imposing its philosophical views in other s. And to avoid ling on the sovereign prerogative of other states. A rule like th does all of those. Justice . Moment to ditch the extraor a, territoriality argument. And just go to pike balancing. At would your position sound like . That prop 12 has a significant effect on interstate commerce. That essentially what, will happen is as weve explained in the grief, that farmers w have any choice, use farmers but to adopt this form of the farmers dont know where the meat from the offspring they sell is going. Im sorry . And on the other side . Theres a balance. And california, we think, has given up its claim to genuine safety ratio but that would be a matter for ou saying california has no distinctly moral erest here . It has a interest that it can satisfy instate. Conditions, at it, by thes conditioning sail from what is done elsewhere. Within pikes balance, there is a bit of a per se rule of its which is the moral interest cann justify conduct out of state is that the idea . That is an essential feature of our horizontal federalist system. Each state is sovereign with its own territory. The reason this its brought in is because the framers were concerned about the balktion that arises when st again, just to make sure i understand the position. You are sayingcalifornia could adopt a complete ban on product, under your initial territoriality rule. Also under pike. T cant do what californias doing. Theres other things that can do. They mentionedlabeling. Labeling is probably San Francisco requires a label on meet, disclosin what seems to regulate out of state conduct. Do i, mean labels we put on instate, but its reallyjust a question of putting a stamp on a package. Itssomething i think its trivial. It allows californians not to beicit. If didnt want to be complicit and raise import the way that raise, it they have the information in front of the mother or not they can buy. It thank you. Whether to pay 8 a pound for pork, or 5 25 a pound, at whole foods, or 5 25 a pound for atwalmart. Just a followup on jus kagans line ofquestioning, where we laid out the cost benefits in our balancing test youre asking us to do. Isnt thatjust a form of enshrining non to cooley he other ways in which the preventing the balkanization trembling the states territorial sovereignty. That the doctr is supposed to protect against, the other sources in the constitution, in e clause has been interpreted the export and import clause. Has been interpreted to apply only to foreign trade. Maybe they got a lot wrong in the court, under the claws congress doesnt have a True Authority under state commerce. Okay, a line of question. Sorr i just want to respect others time. Interstate commerce, i wouldve thought from an antitrust mt, we wouldnt be concerned about protecting be concerned about protectingd consumers at the end of the day. In a similar analysis, it might apply here, it seems to me, alleges harm to large pork producers in certain places, who would have differently secreting out pieces of pork that, i understand whats clear to me is what you ausibly allege, harm to competition or harm to interstate commerce itself. We have other pork producers who say thhappy to step into the board that your f dont wish to fill, and to segregate out pork purdue is saying that. We also have one of you members attesting that