Nat'l Pork Producers Council v. Ross

• Decision Date: 28 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-55631,20-55631
• Citation: 6 F.4th 1021
• Parties: NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL; American Farm Bureau Federation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Karen ROSS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture; Tomás J. Aragón, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health; Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, Defendants-Appellees, and The Humane Society of the United States ; Animal Legal Defense Fund; Animal Equality; The Humane League; Farm Sanctuary ; Compassion Inworld Farming USA; Compassion Over Killing, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

6 F.4th 1021

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL; American Farm Bureau Federation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. Karen ROSS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture; Tomás J. Aragón, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health; Rob Bonta,^* in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, Defendants-Appellees,andThe Humane Society of the United States ; Animal Legal Defense Fund; Animal Equality; The Humane League; Farm Sanctuary ; Compassion Inworld Farming USA; Compassion Over Killing, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55631

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2021 Pasadena, California

Filed July 28, 2021

Timothy S. Bishop (argued) and Brett E. Legner, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Dan Himmelfarb and Colleen M. Campbell, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Travis Cushman, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D.C.; Michael C. Formica, National Pork Producers Council, Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

R. Matthew Wise (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Mark R. Beckington, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Attorney General's Office, Sacramento, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

Bruce A. Wagman (argued), Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, San Francisco, California; Rebecca A. Cary and Ralph E. Henry, Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.; for Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

Catherine E. Stetson and Danielle Desaulniers Stempel, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C.; Patrick Hedren and Erica Klenicki, Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action, Washington, D.C.; Stephen P. Lehotsky and Jonathan D. Urick, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Washington, D.C.; Stephanie K. Harris, FMI—The Food Industry Association, Arlington, Virginia; Scott Yager, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Washington, D.C.; Katie Sweeney, National Mining Association, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae National Association of Manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, FMI—The Food Industry Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and National Mining Association.

Curtis T. Hill Jr., Attorney General; Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General; Kian J. Hudson, Deputy Solicitor General; Julia C. Payne, Deputy Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana; Steven Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Clyde Sniffen Jr., Alaska Attorney General; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General; Christopher M. Carr, Georgia Attorney General; Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General; Derek Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General; Jeff Landry, Louisiana Attorney General; Eric Schmitt, Missouri Attorney General; Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General; Doug Peterson, Nebraska Attorney General; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota Attorney General; Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General; Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Attorney General; Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General; Jason R. Ravnsborg, South Dakota Attorney General; Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General; Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Attorney General; Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; for Amici Curiae Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Robert S. Brewer Jr., United States Attorney; Michael S. Raab and Thomas Pulham, Appellate Staff; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Carrie F. Ricci, Associate General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United States.

Brian M. Boynton and Amy Lishinksi, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Association of California Egg Farmers and Pacific Egg & Poultry Association.

Matthew G. Berkowitz and Yue (Joy) Wang, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Menlo Park, California; L. Kieran Kieckhefer, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, California; Ian E. Roberts, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Dallas, Texas; for Amici Curiae Health Care Without Harm, National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, Consumer Federation of America, and Food & Water Watch.

Before: Milan D. Smith, Jr. and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and John E. Steele,^** District Judge.

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12, which bans the sale of whole pork meat (no matter where produced) from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards. The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation (collectively referred to as "the Council") filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Under our precedent, a state law violates the dormant Commerce Clause only in narrow circumstances. Because the complaint here does not plausibly allege that such narrow circumstances apply to Proposition 12, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the Council's complaint for failure to state a claim.

I

Proposition 12 amended sections 25990 – 25993 of the California Health and Safety Code to "prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of California consumers, and increase the risk of foodborne illness and associated negative fiscal impacts on the State of California." Cal. Prop. 12, § 2 (2018). The relevant portion of Proposition 12 precludes a business owner or operator from knowingly engaging in a sale within California of various products, including the sale of "[w]hole pork meat" unless the meat was produced in compliance with specified sow confinement restrictions. Cal. Prop. 12, § 3(b) (2018); see Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990(b)(1)–(2), 25991(e)(1)–(4).

On December 5, 2019, the Council filed a complaint against California officials (referred to collectively as the California defendants) challenging Proposition 12 and seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Proposition 12 is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause, and a permanent injunction enjoining the implementation and enforcement of Proposition 12.¹ The complaint alleged that Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause in two ways. First, it impermissibly regulates extraterritorial conduct outside of California's borders by compelling out-of-state producers to change their operations to meet California standards. Second, it imposes excessive burdens on interstate commerce without advancing any legitimate local interest because it significantly increases operation costs, but is not justified by any animal-welfare interest and "has no connection to human health or foodborne illness."

On April 27, 2020, the district court granted the California defendants’ motion to dismiss and the intervenors’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The district court held that Proposition 12 did not impermissibly control extraterritorial conduct and did not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce. Although the district court had granted the Council leave to amend, the Council instead moved for entry of judgment, and the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Council timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo the district court's order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Cousins v. Lockyer , 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009), and the district court's order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. , 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011). At the motion to dismiss stage, we take as true the facts plausibly alleged in the complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

II

The Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States." U.S. Const. art. I., § 8, cl. 3. The Commerce Clause does not, on its face, impose any restrictions on state law in the absence of congressional action. Nonetheless, "[f]rom early in its history," the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause as implicitly preempting state laws that regulate commerce in a manner that is disruptive to economic activities in the nation as a whole. See South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2080, 2090, 201 L.Ed.2d 403 (2018) ; Gibbons v. Ogden , 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 200–01, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824). In its most recent consideration of the scope of the dormant Commerce Clause, the Court stated there are "two primary principles that mark the boundaries of a State's authority to regulate interstate commerce." Wayfair , 138 S. Ct. at 2090. "First, state regulations may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and second, States may not impose undue burdens on interstate commerce." Id. at 2091. Although "State laws that discriminate against interstate commerce face ‘a virtually per se rule of invalidity,’ " id. (quoting Granholm v. Heald , 544 U.S. 460, 476, 125 S.Ct. 1885, 161 L.Ed.2d 796 (2005) ), "State laws that ‘regulat[e] even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest ... will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits,’ " id. (quoting Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc ., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) ). Wayfair indicated that these two principles are "subject to exceptions and variations." Id . Among other things, Wayfair cited an earlier decision holding that a state law may violate the dormant Commerce Clause when it has extraterritorial effects. Id. (citing Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth. , 476 U.S. 573, 106...