Kavanaugh objects as Supreme Court turns away California pig welfare law challenge
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a second bite at the apple to review California's law requiring pork sold in the state to come from pigs raised with sufficient living space.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated he would've taken up the case, but neither he nor the majority explained their reasoning, as is typical.
Two years ago, the court upheld the law in response to a challenge from national pork and farmers groups.
But those groups conceded certain legal arguments, and the Iowa Pork Producers Association hoped to pick up the mantle.
Passed by California voters in 2018, Proposition 12 prohibits pork sold in the state if the breeding pig had less than 24 square feet of usable floor space.
Industry groups say the law effectively requires farmers nationwide to comply given California's size, and they've also criticized the standard as arbitrary.
The legal challenge concerns a doctrine rooted in the Constitution's command that Congress holds the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Known as the dormant Commerce Clause, the doctrine restricts states from impeding that power by discriminating purposefully against out-of-state economic interests.
In the previous case, however, the challengers didn't argue that Proposition 12 discriminated against other states. They explicitly conceded the argument before the court, instead advancing more aggressive theories that the justices rejected in a fractured decision.
The new case provided the court a second bite at the apple, but they declined it.
The Iowa-based group advanced a discrimination claim that revolves around an earlier animal welfare measure that applies to California farmers only. That measure gave the in-state farmers six years to comply, but Proposition 12 gave out-of-state farmers less than six weeks.
'If issues of 'morality' can drive the regulation of out-of-state industry (as was supposedly the case with Proposition 12), why couldn't future regulation be based on minimum wage policies of sister States, or employees' immigration status, or any other hot-button social issue of the day? The Framers prohibited precisely this type of discriminatory and overly onerous out-of-state regulation,' the pork association wrote in its petition.
The group is represented by law firms Husch Blackwell and Brick Gentry.
California urged the court to turn away the challenge, saying the earlier groups conceded the argument because 'it lacks any merit.'
'Proposition 12 enacts a neutral sales restriction that treats in-state and outof-state farmers the same,' the state wrote in court filings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
34 minutes ago
- CBS News
Senate holds marathon vote series on Trump's "big, beautiful bill" as GOP eyes July 4 deadline
Washington — A marathon vote series is underway in the Senate after the chamber debated President Trump's massive tax bill into the wee hours of the morning as Republicans work to pass the centerpiece legislation of Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. The House narrowly passed the bill last month, and Senate Republicans have been working to put their mark on the legislation, treading carefully so as not to throw off the delicate balance in the lower chamber. The House will need to approve the Senate's changes to the bill before it can head to the president's desk for his signature. And lawmakers are trying to move quickly, with a self-imposed July 4 deadline to get the measure signed. The Senate worked through the weekend as the GOP nears a final sprint on the legislation ahead of the deadline. Titled "One Big, Beautiful Bill," the legislation includes increased spending for border security, defense and energy production, which is offset in part by cuts to healthcare and nutrition programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimated Sunday that the legislation would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion over the next decade. Senate Republicans advanced the legislation late Saturday, with all but two voting in favor following hours of delay as the GOP worked to iron out last-minute details and dispel concern among holdouts. The vote on the motion to proceed stayed open for more than three hours as holdouts sought assurances from GOP leaders. Some tweaks were made to the bill before Republicans ultimately received enough votes to move forward. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) walks in Capitol Hill, as Republican lawmakers struggle to pass President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill, in Washington, D.C., June 30, 2025. Elizabeth Frantz / REUTERS Senate Democrats further delayed the legislation's path forward by forcing the bill to be read in its entirety, starting late Saturday. After nearly 16 hours, the Senate clerks concluded their reading of the bill on the floor, starting the clock on debate. Each side then had up to 10 hours for debate. The "vote-a-rama" Following debate, and a break until the morning, the Senate began what's known as a "vote-a-rama" Monday in which senators may offer an unlimited number of amendments and force the chamber to cast vote after vote. Democrats have been using the opportunity to put their GOP colleagues on the record on a number of controversial issues ahead of the midterm elections. But before the chamber could get to the amendment votes, senators had to address an outstanding disagreement over the current policy baseline, an accounting approach that would make it appear that extending the current tax policy would cost nothing. Senate Majority Leader John Thune maneuvered Sunday to allow the use of the current policy baseline, before Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quickly appealed the move, requesting a vote as Democrats railed against it as the "nuclear option." The chamber voted 53-47, along party lines, to affirm the use of the current policy baseline on Monday. Schumer said that Democrats would bring "one amendment after the other" Monday, and began the process by offering an amendment to send the bill back to the Finance Committee to revisit some of its health care provisions. The chamber voted down the amendment in a party-line vote. Democrats proposed a number of amendments to attempt to roll back some of the bill's more controversial provisions. Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, proposed an amendment to remove the bill's provisions that he said would force rural hospitals to limit their services or close their doors. And Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, proposed an amendment to eliminate what he called "red tape" around Medicaid eligibility. Other amendments proposed by Democrats concerned cuts to food assistance and state provider taxes, among a number of related issues. The amendments fell short. GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas offered the first Republican-led amendment, which would have reduced federal Medicaid expansion payments to states that provide coverage to undocumented immigrants charged with specific crimes. The Senate's rulemaker, known as the parliamentarian, determined that the provision would require a 60-vote threshold. The amendment fell short, though it picked up support from a handful of Democrats. Amid the slew of votes, anticipation swirled around a consequential amendment expected to be put forward by GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida later Monday. The amendment would significantly reduce the federal Medicaid expansion match made under the Affordable Care Act, barring new enrollees after 2030, in a move that would make the bill more palatable to some fiscal hawks. Thune has backed the amendment, calling it "great policy," and forecasted that it will get significant support among the Senate GOP. But whether it has enough support to be added to the bill remains to be seen. The chamber's pace began to slow Monday evening. As the amendment votes dragged on, Democrats accused Republicans of stalling. "They're delaying, they're stalling, they're cutting a lot of back-room deals," Schumer told reporters. "But we're just pushing forward, amendment after amendment — they don't like these amendments." Asked by reporters about the holdup Monday night, Thune said, "we're just kind of figuring out what everybody has to have in terms of votes." He added that Senate GOP leaders are working to construct a list, and expressed confidence that the chamber could still vote on final passage overnight. The path to passage Senate Republicans have been pursuing the legislation through the budget reconciliation process, which enables the party in the majority to move ahead without support from across the aisle. With only a simple majority required to advance the measure, rather than the 60-votes needed to move forward with most legislation, Senate Democrats have few mechanisms to combat the bill's progress. With a 53-seat majority, Senate GOP leaders can only afford to lose support from three Republicans — and would then still require a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance. And although a number of senators who had expressed opposition to the measure ultimately decided to advance it Saturday, how they will vote on the measure in a final form remains unclear. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina were the two Republicans to oppose the bill's advancement Saturday, and are expected to oppose the legislation on final passage. Tillis, who announced Sunday that he is not seeking reelection, took to the Senate floor that night to outline his opposition to some of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, claiming "Republicans are about to make a mistake on health care" and arguing that the GOP is "betraying our promise." "It is inescapable that this bill in its current form will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made" to target only waste, fraud and abuse in the entitlement program, Tillis said, claiming that the president has been "misinformed" The North Carolina Republican argued that the July 4 deadline is an "artificial" one, saying Senate Republicans are rushing, while encouraging the chamber to "take the time to get this right" and align more closely with the House's Medicaid provisions. But Senate GOP leaders are still moving ahead. Thune, a South Dakota Republican, delivered a defense of the bill on the Senate floor ahead of the vote-a-rama Monday, pushing back on criticism over Medicaid cuts, the impact on the deficit and the use of the current policy baseline. "Let's vote," Thune said. "This is good for America." When asked whether he's confident Senate Republicans have the votes to pass the legislation, the majority leader told reporters, "Never, until we vote." Vance was on hand to break a possible tie vote Saturday, though his vote ultimately wasn't needed. Still, the vice president met with GOP holdouts in the majority leader's office Saturday as the White House put pressure on lawmakers to get the bill across the finish line. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that the president has "been in touch with lawmakers all weekend long to get this bill passed." "The White House and the president are adamant that this bill is passed and that this bill makes its way to his desk," Leavitt said. "Republicans need to stay tough and unified during the home stretch, and we are counting on them to get the job done." Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, warned Sunday that the legislation would be a "political albatross" for Republicans, while suggesting that the bill could even lose support among the GOP, saying "it's not over until it's over." "I think many of my Republican friends know they're walking the plank on this, and we'll see if those who've expressed quiet consternation will actually have the courage of their conviction," Warner said Sunday on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." and contributed to this report.
WIRED
35 minutes ago
- WIRED
Senator Blackburn Pulls Support for AI Moratorium in Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Amid Backlash
Jun 30, 2025 9:18 PM After critics called the bill a 'get-out-jail-free-card' for Big Tech that could make it nearly impossible to rein in social media platforms, Senator Marsha Blackburn killed her own compromise. President Donald Trump delivers remarks as he hosts a "One, Big, Beautiful" event at the White House on June 26. Photogaph:As Congress races to pass President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' it's also sprinting to placate the many haters of the bill's 'AI moratorium' provision which originally required a 10-year pause on state AI regulations. The provision, which was championed by White House AI czar and venture capitalist David Sacks, has proved remarkably unpopular with a diverse contingent of lawmakers ranging from 40 state attorneys general to the ultra-MAGA Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. Sunday night, Senator Marsha Blackburn and Senator Ted Cruz announced a new version of the AI moratorium, knocking the pause from a full decade down to five years and adding a variety of carve-outs. But after critics attacked the watered-down version of the bill as a 'get-out-of-jail free card' for Big Tech, Blackburn reversed course Monday evening. 'While I appreciate Chairman Cruz's efforts to find acceptable language that allows states to protect their citizens from the abuses of AI, the current language is not acceptable to those who need these protections the most,' Blackburn said in a statement to WIRED. 'This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives. Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from making laws that protect their citizens.' For those keeping track at home, Blackburn initially opposed the moratorium, then worked with Cruz on the five-year version of the provision, then changed her mind again to oppose her own compromised version of the law. She has historically championed regulations that protect the music industry, which is a major economic player in her home state of Tennessee. Last year, Tennessee passed a law to stop AI deepfakes of music artists. Her proposed AI provision included an exemption for this kind of law, which expands the legal right to protect one's likeness from commercial exploitation. The version of the moratorium she and Cruz proposed on Sunday also had carve-outs for state laws dealing with 'unfair or deceptive acts or practices, child online safety, child sexual abuse material, rights of publicity, protection of a person's name, image, voice, or likeness.' Despite these carve-outs, the new AI provision received fierce opposition from a wide array of organizations and individuals, ranging from the International Longshore & Warehouse Union ('dangerous federal overreach') to Steve Bannon ('they'll get all their dirty work done in the first five years.') The moratorium's carve-out language comes with a caveat that the exempted state laws cannot place 'undue or disproportionate burden' on AI systems or 'automated decision systems.' With AI and algorithmic feeds embedded in social platforms, critics like Senator Maria Cantwell see the provision's language as creating 'a brand-new shield against litigation and state regulation.' Many advocacy groups and legal experts who focus on these issues, including kid safety rules, say that the new AI provision remains incredibly damaging. Danny Weiss, the chief advocacy officer at the nonprofit Common Sense Media, says that this version is still 'extremely sweeping' and 'could affect almost every effort to regulate tech with regards to safety' because of the undue burden shield. JB Branch, an advocate for consumer rights nonprofit Public Citizen, called the updated moratorium 'a clever Trojan horse designed to wipe out state protections while pretending to preserve them' in a statement, and argued that the undue burden language rendered the carve-outs 'meaningless.' On Monday, Cantwell and Senator Ed Markey introduced an amendment to remove the AI moratorium from the bill altogether, condemning the version proposed Sunday evening as 'a wolf in sheep's clothing,' according to a statement from Markey. 'The language still allows the Trump administration to use federal broadband funding as a weapon against the states and still prevents states from protecting children online from Big Tech's predatory behavior,' he said. (The moratorium ties access to funding from the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program to compliance with the five-year pause.) The Trump Administration has urged Congress to vote on the Big Beautiful Bill before the break for the Fourth of July holiday. It's unclear when this amendment will be voted on, but it may be soon—and it may have a supporter in Blackburn.
Politico
36 minutes ago
- Politico
Grassley strikes deal to table farm aid amendment
Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans said Monday he will not seek reelection 'after some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection,' opening up a solid-blue seat in Philadelphia. Evans faced mounting questions about his ability to serve after suffering a stroke last year and missing months of votes. He insisted until recently he still intended to run for reelection, though several primary challengers were already starting to make moves. 'Serving the people of Philadelphia has been the honor of my life,' Evans said in a statement. 'And I remain in good health and fully capable of continuing to serve. After some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection, I have decided that the time is right to announce that I will not be seeking reelection in 2026.' Evans, 71, has served in Congress since 2016. He succeeded Rep. Chaka Fattah, who resigned after being indicted on federal corruption charges, and is one of six Pennsylvanians on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. His retirement announcement comes amid generational upheaval in the Democratic Party. Longtime Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said earlier this year she wouldn't run again. The party base has looked to their leaders to mount a more vigorous response to President Donald Trump, with some in the party calling for primary challenges to senior leaders. Evans' retirement could kick off a fierce battle between establishment Democrats and progressives for the Philadelphia-area seat, and several possible candidates are already weighing campaigns. Democratic socialists have made headway in the city, particularly at the state level, and pro-Israel groups and the liberal Working Families Party are eyeing the race, according to multiple Democrats. 'This is completely wide open,' said a high-level Philadelphia Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak frankly. 'There is not one person I can see who I would deem the front-runner.' State Sen. Sharif Street, chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, has expressed interest in running for Evans' seat. A second Democrat granted anonymity to speak freely said Street could kick off his campaign as early as Tuesday, though other Democrats said an official announcement could come later. State Rep. Morgan Cephas, who is close to the city's influential building trades unions, is eyeing the seat as well, as is progressive state Rep. Chris Rabb. 'Me and my team are strongly considering a bid,' Cephas told POLITICO Monday. 'But first and foremost I wanted to express my overwhelming gratitude to the work that Congressman Evans has done for the city of Philadelphia.' Rabb said in a text that 'I am seriously considering running for this seat.' State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, another progressive, said his supporters have 'encouraged me to consider a run.' But he said he has 'nothing to announce,' adding that 'today is about Dwight Evans' and 'honoring his legacy.' In a sign of how hotly contested the race could become, some Democrats are already attacking Street publicly and privately before he jumps into the contest. J.J. Balaban, a Democratic consultant who lives in Evans' district, said he opposes a potential bid by Street because in 2021 he worked with a powerful Republican to craft a proposed congressional redistricting map. His plan was not ultimately successful. 'Any good Democrat should hope it's not Sharif Street because of how he tried to sell out the Democratic delegation,' said Balaban. 'We would have fewer congressional seats if he had carried the day.' Street did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the time, Street defended his work with Republicans, saying 'it's our job to negotiate the best that we can.' Street has made some recent efforts to make inroads with progressives, including by endorsing liberal Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner in his successful primary reelection campaign this year over a more moderate challenger. The extent to which Evans does — or doesn't — get involved in helping determine his successor will also shape the race. A Democrat familiar with Evans' thinking said he is 'going to wait and see what the field will look like' before deciding whether to endorse a candidate in the primary. 'Plenty of time to make a decision,' the person added. Rumors have swirled for months about Evans' future, and some Democrats speculated that he might step down in the middle of his term, which would have given power to the city's Democratic ward leaders to choose a nominee for a special election. But Evans said Wednesday that he 'will serve out the full term that ends Jan. 3, 2027.'
