Republicans in Congress are trying to get rid of a California animal welfare law they said is burdening other states.
It’s part of what Democrats say is a pattern of Republicans trying to overreach while they have control of Congress and the White House: Republicans also tried, and ultimately failed, to include a provision that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence in their reconciliation package.
“We had many of the MAGA wing of the Republican Party freak out over the AI provisions in the House version of the ‘big ugly bill,’ which basically nullified states legislating on regulating AI,” Rep. Jim McGovern told NOTUS. “I mean, this is the same thing. Basically, what Republicans are saying here is, ‘We don’t care what states decide. We don’t care what voters decide in states. We don’t care what the regulations are. We know best here in Washington.’”
California’s Proposition 12 is an animal welfare law passed in 2018 by ballot measure that was fully in effect as of 2024. Part of the law states pork sold in California must come from places that follow certain standards for their pigs, such as not being confined “in a cruel manner.”
Those opposed to the law, including many congressional Republicans, pork industry advocates and the powerful American Farm Bureau Federation, have argued the law places difficult and expensive restrictions on pork producers across the country that disproportionally impacts small and midsize farmers.
Their other major concern is that by placing restrictions on all pork sold in the state, Proposition 12 is a regulation on interstate commerce that should be decided by Congress. That was the primary basis of a legal argument the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation made in court, in a federal case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
The court upheld Proposition 12 in 2023.
“Although Congress may seek to exercise this power to regulate the interstate trade of pork, and many pork producers have urged Congress to do so, Congress has yet to adopt any statute that might displace Proposition 12 or laws regulating pork production in other States,” the court said in its opinion.
(The Department of Justice has recently filed a new suit against the law, focused on egg pricing.)
Now, advocates and some members of Congress are seeking to override the law based on the commerce aspect.
“The Supreme Court is very clear here. It’s up to Congress to help define this case. We all agree, interstate commerce is clear. No one state should hold the other 49 hostage,” Iowa GOP Rep. Zach Nunn said during a House Agriculture Committee hearing on Wednesday. He and Rep. Ashley Hinson have introduced legislation that, as Nunn put it during the hearing, makes clear “if you don’t grow it, you don’t get to regulate it.”
Rep. Doug LaMalfa, the sole California Republican on the committee, asked rhetorically, “Why do we push California’s problems onto the rest of the country? And why would we push LA and San Francisco thinking on the other 49 states?”
Republicans also pointed to patchwork regulations and the difficulty of complying, and warned of the costs of following Proposition 12 getting passed onto California consumers.
Committee Chair Rep. Glenn Thompson has made clear he wants to move on the issue. He’s trying to put language into a farm bill this year to regulate, efforts he also made last year. Senators have also introduced legislation with similar regulatory goals.
Democrats also had other concerns about Congress overriding the law, including that many farmers had already updated their production to comply with Proposition 12.
“It would be unfair for the family farmers who updated their facilities to comply with new rules to keep or gain market access, to change the rules on them after they’ve already made those investments,” ranking member Rep. Angie Craig said.
But Democrats’ bigger argument hinged on a D.C.-knows-best attitude from Republicans about a state law that voters approved.
“Well, it’s the law of California,” California Democratic Rep. Jim Costa told NOTUS. He thinks congressional efforts to overturn his state’s law are “problematic.”
Costa’s broader concern, however, was that there are more important things to focus on if supporting the agriculture industry is the goal.
“I think tariffs that we’re dealing with are far greater risk to American consumers, to American producers, agricultural producers than the impacts of Proposition 12,” Costa told NOTUS. “I think that we ought to be focusing on the impacts of tariffs and mass deportation with our labor force.”
Another California Democrat on the agriculture committee also voiced concerns about states’ rights.
“I look at states’ rights. That’s really, for me, what supersedes everything,” Rep. Salud Carbajal told NOTUS. “Look, I love pork, I like bacon, I love carnitas, so I understand both sides of the arguments. But I certainly, at the end of the day, had to defer to the rights and the will of my constituents and the state of California.”
Republicans noticed the line of argument.
“It seems like some of my Democrat colleagues have picked this issue to finally care about states’ rights,” Republican Rep. Mark Messmer said during the hearing.
—
This story was produced as part of a partnership between NOTUS and NewsWell, home of Times of San Diego, Santa Barbara News-Press and Stocktonia.