This article delves into the recent legal developments around California’s Proposition 12, focusing on the extended enforcement stay granted to pork producers. The text outlines the stipulations and limitations of this extension, providing a nuanced understanding of its immediate and future implications. If you have any questions, email [email protected]. For queries or further discussion, you’re welcome to reach out via email at [email protected].
- Cal Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v Ross 6.16.23 Court Order and Joint Stipulation
This document discusses a case involving various California organizations against state officials, in which the plaintiffs sought to delay the enforcement of Proposition 12. The Court granted a temporary injunction, but retained jurisdiction to modify the relief granted. After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 12, the injunction was set to expire on July 1, 2023. The parties then requested a modification to allow for the sale of noncompliant pork meat that had been purchased prior to that date. The stipulation between the parties also sets a termination date for the injunction and stipulates that the plaintiffs will not seek further relief.
- California Proposition 12 stay extended to allow sell-through of certain pork products
California’s Proposition 12 sets forth stringent confinement requirements for egg-laying hens, veal calves, and pigs that are bred for the production of shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal, and pork meat to be sold within the state. In a previous ruling, the Sacramento Superior Court, presiding over the case of California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. Ross, had put a temporary hold on the enforcement of this law for whole pork meat, effective until July 1, 2023.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) later clarified its position, indicating that it would refrain from penalizing noncompliant pork products that were already in inventory as of the aforementioned date. Addressing concerns regarding the CDFA’s stance, the court extended this enforcement stay until December 31, 2023, through its June 16 order. To take advantage of this extension, pork distributors or USDA-inspected establishments must self-certify that they or another similar entity were in possession of the pork product by July 1, 2023.
The court’s ruling places a clear limitation on the leniency: it does not extend to any pork products produced after July 1, 2023, nor does it offer allowances for pigs that are yet to be harvested before that deadline. The court further restricts any party, be it state agencies or private litigants, from enforcing Proposition 12 during this stay period. All exempted products must either be sold within California or exported out of the state by the end of 2023. At that point, the case is set to be automatically dismissed with prejudice.
While this decision provides temporary relief for pork producers in California, it remains an open question as to whether a court ruling on Massachusetts’s similar legislation, known as Question 3, will extend similar exemptions for pork sales in that state.
- In a few words
The legal battle surrounding California’s Proposition 12 has seen several developments, notably through the case of California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. Ross. While the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 12, the Sacramento Superior Court has provided temporary relief for pork producers. The court has extended a stay on enforcement until December 31, 2023, to allow for the sell-through of noncompliant pork meat in inventory as of July 1, 2023. Both the court and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) have stipulated conditions for this extension, which includes self-certification by pork distributors or USDA-inspected establishments to prove possession of the pork product by the July 1 deadline.
This judicial leniency, however, comes with its own set of limitations. It does not cover pork products produced after July 1, 2023, nor does it account for pigs yet to be harvested before that date. The court has also forbidden any party—state or private—from enforcing Proposition 12 during the stay period. After December 31, 2023, the case will automatically be dismissed with prejudice, closing the door on this specific legal challenge. The situation leaves some uncertainties, notably regarding whether similar rulings will be applied to comparable laws in other states, like Massachusetts’s Question 3. Therefore, while this series of events provides interim relief to pork producers, it sets a finite timeline for compliance and leaves several unresolved questions for the broader industry.
