The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed lower court opinions dismissing the National Pork Producers Council’s challenge to California Proposition 12.

Officially the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, Prop 12 bans the sale of eggs and pork and veal products in California unless production facilities meet animal-confinement standards dictated by the state. The practical impact of Prop 12 would be to impose California’s animal husbandry rules on producers throughout the country.

The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Diego, arguing that subjecting out-of-state producers to California’s regulations violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

That lawsuit was dismissed by the district court. That dismissal was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and now by the Supreme Court.

It’s important to note that the justices did not render an opinion on the merits of Prop 12, its practicality or even its constitutionality. It ruled simply that the plaintiffs failed to make their case.

But that’s a distinction without a difference. Prop 12 stands.

On its face, Prop 12 deals solely with products sold within the state. The animal welfare advocates who backed the measure understood the larger impacts of Prop 12.

The nature of pork production, processing and marketing all but ensures that every out-of-state producer would have to comply with California rules if distributors want to sell their wares in the nation’s largest market.

Part of a litter of pigs born in Iowa could be sold to feeders in Nebraska while others could go to North Carolina. All of the pigs could then go to finishers in other states and end up in multiple packinghouses. Most of the animals that would be subject to Prop 12 reside outside California.

The complex nature of the supply chain makes it nearly impossible to segregate pork based on husbandry practices. Conforming to the rules will cost farmers millions.

What now?

What happens when other states pass equally strict rules that are at odds with those outlined in Prop 12? How could a national food system function with multiple sets of rules?

The justices say opponents of Prop 12 could convince Congress to write favorable legislation controlling husbandry practices nationwide.

Congress has not yet jumped on the issue, and that’s an approach fraught with its own dangers.

The justices also note that there are other potential constitutional challenges left untried by plaintiffs. Litigation takes years.

The opinion points out that Prop 12 impacts out-of-state producers only to the extent they want to sell pork in California.

What if they don’t?

The quickest way to strike down Prop 12 is through the stomachs of California consumers.

Californians consume some 255 million pounds of pork a month. But, hog farmers there only produce 45 million pounds a month.

Voters in California are free to call the tune for pork producers in their state, but hog farmers in other states don’t have to dance or pay the fiddler.