As part of a larger coalition, Farm Sanctuary served as an intervenor in the SCOTUS Prop 12 case. We’ve received a number of questions about the court’s recent Prop 12 ruling, and are excited to share answers to your most frequently asked questions.

In 2018, nearly two-thirds of California voters passed the “Farm Animal Confinement Initiative,” also known as Proposition (Prop) 12. Prop 12 is a landmark voter initiative that establishes minimum space requirements for pregnant pigs, egg-laying hens, and calves raised for veal.¹

The law prohibits California businesses from selling animal-derived food products not raised in compliance with Prop 12, even if those products come from out of state. When successfully implemented, Prop 12 will improve the lives of almost a million pigs and 40 million egg-laying hens per year.

Importantly, Prop 12 bans the use of battery cages and gestation crates: two kinds of cages that prevent egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs from turning around or stretching their limbs. Under Prop 12, each individual animal must have usable floor space within the following minimum space requirements:

1. Female pigs who are at least six months old or pregnant: 24 square feet
2. Egg-laying hens: 1 square foot
3. Calves raised for veal: 43 square feet

SCOTUS’s decision to uphold Prop 12 is historic and momentous for several reasons!

1. This is one of the first SCOTUS opinions that ruled on an issue that directly impacted animal welfare.
2. The ruling will no doubt help to protect other state animal protection initiatives succeeding all over the country, which may face challenges similar to Prop 12.²
3. In the Prop 12 decision, SCOTUS chose to prioritize democracy over industry interests. This reasoning provides support for future voter initiatives that may undergo challenges by those who oppose it.
4. This decision could also serve as a wake up call for the animal agriculture industry, who is accustomed to government entities generally siding with its interests over any other. SCOTUS veered from this trend by resting its decision on the rights of state citizens.

Essentially, the pork industry made three basic arguments in favor of repealing Prop 12. In the National Pork Producers Council v. Ross opinion, SCOTUS rejected all three of these arguments. They argued that:

1. The costs associated with updating the industry’s production methods to legally sell pork products to California residents is overburdensome.
2. Their current welfare policies are superior to those requirements set forth in Prop 12.
3. Prop 12 is unconstitutional and a violation of Interstate Commerce.

In the United States, any law can be repealed. However, since SCOTUS’s ruling largely rested upon the idea that a law voted for by the people should prevail over any industry interest, we can assume that Prop 12 will most likely be upheld.

There is currently at least one other challenge to Prop 12 that is being brought by another industry group. Its arguments are essentially the same and that case has already been rejected at the lower court levels.

Prop 12’s provisions protecting egg-laying hens and veal calves went into effect January 1, 2022, but judicial challenges to the law delayed implementation of the new pig-related requirements. The injunction preventing the enforcement of Prop 12 for pork producers ends July 1, 2023, meaning pork producers have until the end of June 2023 to ensure their facilities are Prop 12-compliant.

The California Department of Food & Agriculture and the California Department of Public Health will issue and enforce Prop 12’s regulations³. The California Department of Food & Agriculture is still writing the regulations that will describe exactly how the Prop 12 standards will be implemented and enforced.

Pork, veal, and egg businesses must retrofit their current facilities to comply with Prop 12’s new minimum space requirements. Instead of bearing the true costs of their inhumane practices, agribusiness producers will transfer the costs of more humane production to consumers.

For example, the National Pork Producers Council claims that pork producers expect to spend anywhere from $290 to $348 million to update sow housing. Pork producers plan to pass those costs to customers, leading California pork consumers to pay approximately 8% more for Prop 12-compliant meat.

In voting for Prop 12, Californians knew they could face rising costs for pork, bacon, eggs, and veal. However, those costs should prove nominal.

The SCOTUS Prop 12 ruling is a huge victory for the farmed animal protection movement for many reasons. But perhaps the most significant takeaway from the decision is that SCOTUS firmly and unequivocally supported and upheld the idea that a state’s citizens have the right to decide for themselves what laws they wish to be bound by. Prop 12 was the result of a voter initiative; the people of California decided that they wanted these higher welfare standards for farmed animals. Regardless of cost and impact to industry, both on a local and national scale, Prop 12 was born out of our democratic process, and this was deemed paramount over any other concerns raised to SCOTUS.

The farmed animal protection movement can use this decision as support for future voter initiatives across the country. Voter initiatives rooted in improved animal welfare are extremely well received by the public at large and pass 99% of the time. These initiatives take time, energy, and resources, but are overwhelmingly successful and can result in meaningful change. With this most recent SCOTUS decision around Prop 12, animal advocates can feel confident that they now have the support of the Supreme Court in these state driven efforts.

The Prop 12 SCOTUS decision rests primarily on the idea that state citizens have the right to vote for laws that they want to live by, and that this idea is paramount to any other interest posed by parties outside of that state. So, there could be some concern that this ruling could potentially uphold state voter initiatives that are contrary to progressive viewpoints. However, the SCOTUS opinion really highlights the importance of something that is fundamental in the United States: the value of democracy and the value of states’ rights.