Full Case Name:  NORTH AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Xavier BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees, The Humane Society of the United States; et al., Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

Share |
Country of Origin:  United States Court Name:  United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Primary Citation:  825 F. App'x 518 (9th Cir. 2020) Date of Decision:  Monday, October 5, 2020 Judge Name:  Judge Callahan Jurisdiction Level:  Federal Alternate Citation:  825 Fed.Appx. 518 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2020) Judges:  Judge Callahan Judge Ikuta Circuit Judges Judge Bencivengo, District Judge Attorneys:  Sean Ashley Commons, Esquire, Attorney, Eric Dean McArthur, Esquire, Attorney, Paul J. Zidlicky, Attorney, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant R. Matthew Wise, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Bruce A. Wagman, Attorney, Riley, Safer, Holmes & Cancila LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees Thomas Molnar Fisher, Solicitor General, IAGO - Indiana Attorney Generals Office, Indiana Government Center South, Indianapolis, IN, for Amici Curiae State of Indiana, State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Kansas, State of Louisiana, State of Missouri, State of Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, State of South Dakota, State of Utah, State of West Virginia Catherine Emily Stetson, Esquire, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae National Association of Manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Food Marketing Institute Brian Matthew Boynton, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Association of California Egg Farmers Docket Num:  No. 19-56408
Summary: The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) brought suit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12 brought suit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12 (which forbids the sale of pork meat and eggs in California from producers that do not comply with its animal housing standards). NAMI alleged that Proposition 12 violated the dormant commerce clause by improperly regulating economic activity outside of California’s boundaries and substantially burdening interstate commerce. Plaintiffs acknowledged that Proposition 12 was not facially discriminatory, and that Proposition 12 did not have a discriminatory purpose, because there was a lack of evidence that the state had protectionist intent when enacting Proposition 12. The district court dismissed the case, and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

*519 MEMORANDUM**

North American Meat Institute (NAMI) appeals the district court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that NAMI was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim. NAMI acknowledges that Proposition 12 is not facially discriminatory. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Proposition 12 does not have a discriminatory purpose given the lack of evidence that the state had a protectionist intent. Given the inconsistencies in dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2013), to hold that Proposition 12 does not have a discriminatory effect because it treats in-state meat producers the same as out-of-state meat producers. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25990(b); Wayfair v. South Dakota, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2080, 2100–01, 201 L.Ed.2d 403 (2018) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).

*520 The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Proposition 12 does not directly regulate extraterritorial conduct because it is not a price control or price affirmation statute. See Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 336, 109 S.Ct. 2491, 105 L.Ed.2d 275 (1989); Pharm. Rsch. & Mfrs. of Am. v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644, 669–70, 123 S.Ct. 1855, 155 L.Ed.2d 889 (2003).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in holding that Proposition 12 does not substantially burden interstate commerce. Proposition 12 does not impact an industry that is inherently national or requires a uniform system of regulation. See Pac. Nw. Venison Producers v. Smitch, 20 F.3d 1008, 1014–15 (9th Cir. 1994). It was not an abuse of discretion to conclude that Proposition 12 does not create a substantial burden because the law precludes sales of meat products produced by a specified method, rather than imposing a burden on producers based on their geographical origin. See Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 145, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970).

Finally, because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it held that NAMI was unlikely to succeed on the merits, the district court did not err when it refused to consider the other preliminary injunction factors. See Glob. Horizons, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 510 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

All Citations

825 Fed.Appx. 518 (Mem)

Footnotes

* The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Share |