A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a pig-welfare law in California has raised questions about its potential implications for states seeking to expand the reach of their abortion regulations. The May 11 ruling, which upheld California’s ban on the in-state sale of pork from pigs raised in cramped conditions, centered around the dormant commerce clause. This clause generally prohibits state laws that burden out-of-state competitors to benefit in-state economic interests. Politico reports that the decision’s broader implications could embolden states to crack down on various aspects of abortion rights and potentially restrict the sale of goods from states with contrary views.
Pork producers had argued that California’s law violated the dormant commerce clause by regulating commerce beyond the state’s borders and imposing excessive burdens compared to the benefits. However, the Supreme Court found no violation and upheld the law. This decision focused on states’ authority to take actions that have impacts beyond their borders, a concept closely tied to the ongoing legal debates surrounding abortion.
The Politico report suggests that the Supreme Court’s pig-welfare decision could embolden states to enact stricter regulations on abortion. For instance, states might seek to crack down on the mailing of abortion pills or attempt to restrict the sale of goods from states with differing views on abortion. In his dissent to the Supreme Court decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted another potential consequence. He proposed the scenario where a state could try to prohibit the retail sale of items from companies based on their support for birth control or abortion.
In an op-ed for the Boston Globe, Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, further explores the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision. She points out that the ruling leaves abortion-rights supporters with one less legal weapon in their arsenal as interstate conflicts over abortion escalate. Ziegler also acknowledges a potential hurdle for states attempting to ban the importation of abortion pills within their borders. Since medication is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), federal laws could supersede state laws in this regard. Additionally, Ziegler highlights that if a conservative state, such as Missouri, were to make it a crime for someone in neighboring Illinois to perform an abortion for a Missouri resident, a court would likely apply Illinois law rather than Missouri rules.
The recent Supreme Court decision regarding a pig-welfare law in California has broader implications, particularly in the context of abortion regulations. It opens up the possibility for states to expand their restrictions on abortion by drawing parallels to the dormant commerce clause. While the decision could embolden states to enact stricter regulations, there are potential limitations, such as federal oversight by the FDA and the application of neighboring states’ laws in certain scenarios. As the legal landscape evolves, it is essential to closely monitor how states navigate the intersection of commerce regulations and reproductive rights and how these developments impact women’s healthcare across the country.
