What You Need to Know About California Prop 12 and the Supreme Court Case

In 2018, California residents showed up to the polls in support of Proposition 12—a landmark measure to protect animals. The law protects millions of farm animals by banning intensive cage confinement within the state, and banning the sale of out-of-state products that come from animals in intensive confinement. In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld Prop 12, protecting sows, hens, and calves from spending their lives in cages so small they can’t even turn around.

Despite its massive support from across the state, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) resisted the new animal welfare standards of Prop 12. They argued that the law was unconstitutional, and tried to get it overturned by the Ninth Circuit federal district and appellate courts. After losses at both the district and appellate levels, the NPPC appealed the case to the Supreme Court. As an intervening party in the case, The Humane League fought for Prop 12 at every level, and numerous farmers, veterinarians, and policy experts shared their support for the law.

The Supreme Court ultimately released its decision on May 11, 2023, after months of deliberation. With all nine Justices of the Supreme Court unanimously rejecting the pig industry's primary argument, Prop 12 will remain in effect, making it illegal for calves, hens, and sows to be confined in "a cruel manner," and prohibiting the in-state sale of products from animals raised in such a manner. For these animals, the Court's ruling to keep Prop 12 in place is life-changing.

Here's everything you need to know about the Prop 12 decision, and what it means for animal welfare in California and beyond.

Prop 12 Supreme Court decision

On May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court released its decision to uphold Proposition 12, the common-sense California legislation that gives millions of baby calves, mother hens, and mother pigs enough space to turn around, stand up, and stretch their limbs. Prop 12 will remain in effect, making it illegal for these animals to be confined in "a cruel manner," and prohibiting the in-state sale of products from animals raised in that cruel manner. For the animals at the center of this case, the Supreme Court's ruling is nothing short of life-changing. 

Federal judges upheld Prop 12 at all three levels of the federal court system. No matter how many times the pig industry fought back against these rulings, its arguments failed before multiple courts: at the District Court of Southern California, at the Ninth District Court of Appeals, and, now, at the Supreme Court of the United States. The US Supreme Court affirmed that the pork industry didn’t have a case. This ruling firmly cements critical protections for animals.

In its lengthy opinion, the US Supreme Court unanimously (9-0) rejected the pork industry’s primary claim that Proposition 12 is unconstitutional because of its indirect ‘extraterritorial’ effects on out-of-state pork producers. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch explained that it is not uncommon for companies to have to comply with the laws of other states—most state laws have the effect of controlling commerce outside of the state that passes the law. Furthermore, a majority of the Court (5-4) rejected the pork industry’s secondary claim that the benefits of Prop 12 to California residents do not outweigh the economic burdens imposed on out-of-state pork producers. The Court refused to accept this argument, outright rejecting the pork industry’s call for the Court to adopt “more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders” noting specifically that, “while the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.”

The Court’s opinion also validated the premise that voters and elected officials have the power to make decisions about animal welfare and public health, asserting that, “in a functioning democracy, those sorts of policy choices—balancing competing, incommensurable goods—belong to the people and their elected representatives.”

Critically, the importance of this victory goes beyond just Proposition 12. This landmark decision protects similar laws passed by voters and elected officials for animals in other states, including Massachusetts' Question 3. And it opens the door for future meaningful policies that can change the lives of animals on factory farms across the country.

This progress wouldn’t have been possible without all the changemakers who worked tirelessly to protect Prop 12—donors, volunteers, and advocates. The Humane League is especially grateful to our intervening partners in this Supreme Court case: Animal Equality, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Outlook, Compassion in World Farming USA, Farm Sanctuary, and the Humane Society of the United States. We also want to recognize the California Attorney General and the lawyers in our Animal Protection Law department, alongside their partners at MoloLamken LLP and at Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, who relentlessly saw this legal fight through to the very end.

California Prop 12: Overview and background

Introduction to California Prop 12

Also known as the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, Proposition 12 is a landmark California law that offers protections to egg-laying hens, mother pigs, and calves raised for veal. Under this law, it’s illegal for hens, mother pigs, and veal calves to be confined in what the state calls “a cruel manner.” Prop 12 also prohibits the in-state sale of products from caged animals raised out-of-state.

Brief history of Prop 12

Prop 12's origins go back to 2008, when Californians voted on another ballot initiative-the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act, also known as Prop 2. Prop 2 set basic standards for the confinement of hens, mother pigs, and veal calves, mandating that each animal has enough space to "stand up, lie down, turn around, and stretch their limbs without hitting the sides of a cage." Prop 2 passed with over 63% of the vote, and its standards went into effect in 2015, providing farmers with six years to make changes. Although Prop 2 provided some relief for animals suffering in intensive confinement, it didn't establish any specific, enforceable space requirements for animals-leaving many animals to continue to experience the harmful impacts of life in a cage. 

When it landed on the ballot in 2018, Proposition 12 promised to go further to protect animals from inhumane treatment by establishing specific space requirements for animals, and banning the sale of out-of-state products that don't meet those requirements. The law's standards would effectively prohibit the use of gestation crates for mother pigs, veal crates for baby calves, and battery cages for egg-laying hens: all forms of confinement which virtually immobilize animals, prevent them from engaging in any natural behaviors, and subject them to intense physical and psychological anguish.

California voters expressed overwhelming support for Prop 12, with 7.5 million people voting for its passage (a total of 63% of the voter base). Every major farm animal protection organization endorsed the initiative-including The Humane League. In fact, THL volunteers in San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles stood at the helm of a massive "Get Out the Vote" initiative. Together, they sent over 1.375 million text messages in support of Prop 12 to voters throughout the state, and collected over 660,000 signatures to get Prop 12 on the ballot. 

The law was partially implemented in 2022, as the state's provisions protecting egg-laying hens and veal calves went into effect. However, the implementation of Prop 12's standards for pigs in the meat industry was delayed due to the pending case, National Pork Producers v. Ross, before the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case in March 2022, and heard oral arguments for and against the law in October 2022.

Explanation of Prop 12's key provisions

Prop 12 makes it illegal to confine animals in a "cruel manner" in California, and bans the in-state sale of products that come from animals who were confined in a cruel manner in another state. The law offers a set of basic requirements for three different species: birds, pigs, and cows.

• Egg-laying hens Prop 12 ensures that egg-laying hens (which includes bird species such as chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and guinea fowl) live in spaces that meet the United Egg Producers' 2017 cage-free guidelines. Under these guidelines, hens must have floors that are bedded with litter or straw so they are not forced to stand on bare wire mesh. Each hen must also have a minimum amount of space to stretch their wings and move around. Hens in multi-tier housing systems-housing setups with different levels for hens to roost-must have at least one square foot of space to call their own. If they live on a single level, each hen must have at least one and a half square feet of space.
• Pigs In the meat industry, breeding facilities often keep female pigs in tight metal cages known as "gestation crates" for the entirety of their pregnancies. Gestation crates typically provide just 14 square feet of floor space to each pig-making it so cramped that pigs can't turn around or move their body without hitting the sides of the crate. Prop 12 ensures that each mother pig has at least 24 square feet of floor space, which provides more room for pigs to move unencumbered.
• Cows The veal industry traps newborn calves in cages known as veal crates. The industry designs these crates to keep baby cows from moving and prevent their normal muscle development. Prop 12's standards would ensure each calf has 43 square feet of space, which is an area about the size of a king-sized mattress.

Current status of Prop 12

Prop 12’s standards for cows and egg-laying hens went into effect in January 2022. However, because of the National Pork Producers’ lawsuit challenging Prop 12, the implementation of the standards for pigs has been delayed, pending the Supreme Court's decision. Regulations for pigs are enforceable as of July 1, 2023.

What’s at stake in the Prop 12 Supreme Court case?

Proposition 12 is one of the strongest animal protection laws in the world. The outcome of the Supreme Court case set a crucial precedent for animal welfare in the US—and it impacts the lives of millions of animals.

Overview of the Prop 12 Supreme Court case

Although Prop 12 passed with a majority of the vote in California, several meat industry interest groups have challenged the law's constitutionality in an attempt to get it thrown out. National Pork Producers v. Ross is actually the fourth major lawsuit that aims to overturn Prop 12-the first three lawsuits upheld Prop 12 in spite of meat industry attacks. However, the NPPC's lawsuit is the first to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.

In 2019, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation challenged Prop 12 in the District Court for Southern California, stating that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. The district court dismissed the case and held that NPPC failed to make a sufficient argument that Prop 12 violated the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. The NPPC appealed the decision to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Dissatisfied with these outcomes, the National Pork Producers Council petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case against Prop 12. In March 2022, the Supreme Court accepted the case. In October 2022, the court heard the National Pork Producer Council's arguments, as well as the case for upholding Prop 12.

The arguments raised for and against Prop 12 at the Supreme Court

Prop 12's opponents claimed that the law violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between states. They stated that Prop 12's animal welfare standards regulate commerce outside of California, putting an undue burden on farmers outside the state of California, and they argued, therefore, that the law should be struck down.

Meanwhile, advocates for Prop 12 have pointed to the fact that many farmers already comply with Prop 12's animal welfare standards-making it far from an "undue burden." In fact, an alliance of small and independent farming businesses endorsed Prop 12 and the "important new production and marketing opportunities" the law would provide for them, seeing as these farmers are equipped to meet consumer demand for humanely-raised products.

Animal welfare experts and veterinarians agreed that Prop 12's standards are both "reasonable and humane." Countless studies have shown that intensive confinement causes an immense amount of physical pain and emotional distress for pigs. Gestation crates restrict pigs' movement and force them to lie in their own waste, weakening their bodies and exposing them to excruciating diseases. Pigs-who scientists have proven to be intelligent, social, and emotional animals-also experience extreme boredom and frustration in these crates. They engage in harmful behaviors to cope, including repetitively chewing the bars of their crate until their mouths bleed. Intensive confinement is nothing short of torture for mother pigs, and California voters are well within their rights to reject this cruelty in their state.

Overall, big meat producers' objections to Prop 12 ignored the will of California voters, whose communities stand to benefit from Prop 12's implementation. The Center for Food Safety states that Prop 12's protections reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses that come from factory farms that confine animals in cages, and advocates for worker safety also claim that Prop 12-compliant facilities are less likely to expose workers to zoonotic diseases (diseases that spread from animals to humans). Upholding Prop 12 doesn't just make California a kinder place for animals-it makes it a safer and healthier place for all residents.

Prop 12 FAQs

What is California Prop 12?

Prop 12, also known as the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, outlaws the intensive confinement of farm animals in California by establishing specific space standards for farm animals. It also requires that products sold in California comply with these standards.

What are the key provisions of Prop 12?

Prop 12 establishes minimum space requirements for egg-laying hens, veal calves, and mother pigs. Its space requirements ensure that animals have enough space to stand up, lie down, turn around, and stretch their limbs without hitting the sides of a cage. In addition to banning intensive confinement within the state, the law bans the sale of out-of-state products that come from animals who were raised in intensive confinement.

What was the Supreme Court case about?

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) filed suit challenging Prop 12 in the District Court of Southern California, claiming that the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Their case was dismissed by the District Court of Southern California and the US Ninth District Appeals Court, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear the NPPC’s case in March 2022. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from opponents and supporters of Prop 12 in October 2022.

What was at stake in the Supreme Court ruling?

The Supreme Court’s ruling in National Pork Producers v. Ross determined whether the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) had a case—that is, whether or not the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between states.

Since it went into effect in January 2022, Prop 12 has already positively impacted the lives of egg-laying hens and veal calves without adversely affecting food prices. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the law decides if more animals will benefit from Prop 12’s crucial protections.

What were the arguments of both sides?

Opponents of Prop 12 argued that the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, as its animal welfare standards create an undue burden on farmers outside California.

Supporters of Prop 12 believed these animal welfare protections were reasonable and humane, and point to the fact that many farmers already comply with these standards and the standards only apply to farmers who wish to sell their products in the state.

How does Prop 12 compare to other animal welfare laws in the US?

Prop 12 is one of the strongest animal welfare laws in the world. It protects animals across three species-birds, pigs, and cows-from intensive confinement within the state, and bans the sale of out-of-state products that come from farm animals raised in intensive confinement. 

However, California is not the only state that's making progress on farm animal welfare. Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington have all banned the use of battery cages, an intensive form of confinement for egg-laying hens. In addition, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and Rhode Island have also passed bans on gestation crates for mother pigs.

In Massachusetts specifically, the housing provisions have already been in effect, and the sales requirements are in effect as of 30 days after the Supreme Court’s Prop 12 decision.

What’s next?

The Supreme Court Hearing on Prop 12 put a national spotlight on the suffering of animals in intensive confinement. As awareness of the cruelty of cage confinement grows, consumers are demanding better for animals and their communities.

The Court’s decision to uphold Prop 12 is a milestone for our movement. On the heels of this victory, we need to unite across organizations, across movements, across the country—and defend this win and everything it means for animals.

Despite the popularity of cage-free laws with voters and this momentous decision, the industry is already taking this fight to Congress, with Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), signaling just five hours after the US Supreme Court’s decision that he plans to reintroduce the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act). While the bill has not yet been introduced, prior versions of this bill, like the King Amendment, would have been detrimental to the incredible progress our movement has achieved. These bills are dangerous because they’re designed to wipe out state laws like Prop 12 that ban the cruel cage confinement of egg-laying chickens, mother pigs, and baby veal calves. If passed, the EATS Act could also destroy hundreds of other protections against the worst cruelties animals face—like the abuse of dogs in puppy mills, the killing of animals for the wildlife trade, and painful experiments inflicted on animals for cosmetic testing—as well as state laws on a vast range of other concerns including pesticide application on fields, arsenic in food, protection against lead poisoning, chemicals in baby food containers, pollution standards for spraying sewage on crops, flammability standards for cigarettes, and child labor.

But we’ve defeated these dangerous bills before, and we’re prepared to do it again. We're strengthening alliances across the movement, building a team of legislative experts strong enough to take on massive factory farming interests. Our new Animal Policy Alliance (APA) is laser-focused on driving policy change in the US to protect farmed animals. Our team of legislative experts equips local and state grassroots animal groups with the connections, research, strategy support, and grants they need to create impactful legislation for animals, right in their own communities.

But none of that happens without you. Become a monthly donor to build power through our Animal Policy Alliance—creating a foundation for justice that animal abusers can’t destroy. When you sign up as a monthly donor, you’ll help us grow our team of experts, partner with allies across the movement, and tackle the biggest farming interests. You’ll also help defeat dangerous bills, like the EATS Act, which threaten to roll back protections of animals, people, and the environment.