Does this: Give the go ahead to state environmental and consumer regulations that may inflict significant economic harm on other states but do not discriminate between in-state and out-of-state producers?
Pork Producers Council v. Ross
- Thread starter Spartans9312
- Start date
Does this: Give the go ahead to state environmental and consumer regulations that may inflict significant economic harm on other states but do not discriminate between in-state and out-of-state producers?
It is going to lead to a host of problems. CA/NY and TX/FL are the giants and they will pass all sorts of laws to force their beliefs on the rest of the country.
Why? Does it have implications for the pharmaceutical industry, outside of the food industry?
We already have California dictating to the rest of the country what happens with new cars . . . this doesn't seem to be new . . . .
Almost all pork consumed in California is produced in other states.
Does California, essentially, control the country’s pork industry?
Yes it does after this. I agree with the concept CA wants. But having them dictate is going to be a problem. I am not sure of what products TX and FL import a lot of, but what if they said that they wouldn't allow products from businesses that offer certain medical procedures in insurance?
This has been a problem with state-based regulatory schemes for years. There are a couple of approaches one can take: (1) one can try to do a one-size fits all approach and try to accommodate the most restrictive standard in all states, or (2) on can try to do a custom approach and try to comply with each state's regs. We did the latter in consumer finance and banking, as is traditional in that industry. Insurance companies wanted consistent regs to apply to all their products, and argued for national regulation rather than the state-based patchwork.
Neil Gorsuch and the Structural Constitution | National Review
Neil Gorsuch has shown a willingness to respect the judicial duty and enforce the Constitution’s structural protections against federal overreach.
www.nationalreview.com
“The idea that states can’t impose regulations that impede interstate commerce even if Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden them to do so”
“While the commerce clause has been invoked since the New Deal as a warrant for nearly unlimited federal power, its inverse actually seems more faithful to a founding document concerned with the free flow of commerce throughout the nation”
Does Gorsuch get it wrong as the article implies?
Pretty much all the time; it's the primary constitutional authority for most federal laws. Welfare? Commerce clause. Interstate system? Commerce clause. IRS? 16th constitutional amendment.
But one cannot enforce federal or other states' regs applicable to intrastate commerce in another state. Markets dictate compliance with a state's regulatory scheme. You want to enter California's 50 million customer market? Comply with California's regs . . . BTDT in 26 states as pertains to lending regs.
He's trying to make new law. Historically, the Commerce Clause has been used to justify virtually unlimited federal power.Neil Gorsuch and the Structural Constitution | National Review
Neil Gorsuch has shown a willingness to respect the judicial duty and enforce the Constitution’s structural protections against federal overreach.
“The idea that states can’t impose regulations that impede interstate commerce even if Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden them to do so”
“While the commerce clause has been invoked since the New Deal as a warrant for nearly unlimited federal power, its inverse actually seems more faithful to a founding document concerned with the free flow of commerce throughout the nation”
Does Gorsuch get it wrong as the article implies?
BTW, I said about 4 or so years ago that I was concerned about a reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause. I got laughed at by @CO. Hoosier.
Wrong? I guess it depends on whether you agree with historical interpretations (which US law have relied on for centuries), or Gorsuch's point of view. Gorusch's POV is a staple of John Birch Society constitutional theory.
SCOTUS Chooses California Over Pork Producers and Bacon Consumers (and Issues Four Other Opinions Too)
The Supreme Court issues five merits opinions, but there are still forty more waiting.
reason.com
“the decision complicates the already questionable ‘Roberts Court is pro-business’ narrative, by demonstrating (yet again) that when conservative jurisprudential commitments conflict with corporate interests, the former prevail. Combined with decisions such as Virginia Uranium v. Warren, National Pork Producers shows that business groups cannot depend on conservative justices to support their challenges to state regulations”
Where’s IGW?
Lawyers are used to having a patchwork of laws. Tech companies have to comply with various countries' privacy laws . . . and the US has at least two federal laws (healthcare and financial) regarding privacy.
Corporations will drive the one-world of regulations.
BTW, the "Dormant" Commerce Clause is referring to under this court . . . it's only been "dormant" under the influence of Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh.
Congress has the authority to prevent that by passing federal standards and declaring that states have no authority to adopt different standards.
The president can also impose federal requirements through any grants or federal aid for the benefit of agriculture. The feds already do this for purely local street signs.
I think the opinion is kind of a no-brainer and really doesn’t change anything.
Nah. California has had different emission standards for cars for decades. I don’t think the auto industry sued, they just made “California “ cars.
Lol. The dormant commerce clause theory was around more than 100 years before any of them were born.
Some other cases I found that discuss the commerce clause. Does the pork producers case interpret the clause differently?
Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals in this class action, holding that the surcharge imposed by Maricopa County on car rental agencies to fund a stadium and other sports and tourism-related ventures violated neither the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States...
law.justia.com
Energy & Environment Legal v. Epel, No. 14-1216 (10th Cir. 2015)
Colorado law required electricity generators to ensure that 20% of the electricity they sell to Colorado consumers comes from renewable sources. Colorado's scheme may require Coloradans to pay more for electricity, but voters overwhelmingly approved the ballot initiative proposing the renewable...
law.justia.com
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Residency Law; Opens Door for Retailer Shipping Challenges
Seven of the justices delivered a strong defense of the Constitution's Commerce Clause in the face of discriminatory state alcohol regulations
www.winespectator.com
It's hard to say what the case means . . . the opinions and concurrences/dissents are all over the map.Some other cases I found that discuss the commerce clause. Does the pork producers case interpret the clause differently?
Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals in this class action, holding that the surcharge imposed by Maricopa County on car rental agencies to fund a stadium and other sports and tourism-related ventures violated neither the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States...
Energy & Environment Legal v. Epel, No. 14-1216 (10th Cir. 2015)
Colorado law required electricity generators to ensure that 20% of the electricity they sell to Colorado consumers comes from renewable sources. Colorado's scheme may require Coloradans to pay more for electricity, but voters overwhelmingly approved the ballot initiative proposing the renewable...
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Residency Law; Opens Door for Retailer Shipping Challenges
Seven of the justices delivered a strong defense of the Constitution's Commerce Clause in the face of discriminatory state alcohol regulations
BTW, I was wrong on what I said the "Dormant" Commerce Clause means. Apparently it's a term of art among constitutional practitioners . . . I have not been.
Seems like a pretty straight-forward application of the dormant Commerce Clause to me. Correct decision.
They already do. This ruling doesn't change anything. It just reiterates the status quo.
I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't think he's breaking new ground here. I remember a case we had to study in law school, I think it was in Iowa or around there. Something to do with tire or axle regulations on trucks. Long and short of it seemed to be that state regulations only offended the dormant Commerce Clause if they discriminated against out-of-state business in favor of in-state.
I think it will legitimize it more. We will know in a couple years.
This is a pretty old standard. It may have started a thread here, but he didn't break any ground.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
The most extraordinary thing about the opinion is the breakdown of justices on the issues. Wow.
I don't either. But I do think he might be presaging a wholesale revision of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
If I understand this correctly, isn't the way gasoline is handled in California similar? In other words, producers/suppliers abide by stricter regulations for California specifically, and therefore, charge higher prices for wholesale gasoline products (see below)? In other words, pork producers need to abide by California laws & regs but are likely to charge a premium that will be borne by the California consumer (in theory) to ensure their production meets California requirements?
California Has a Gas-Price Mystery: Too High, but Why?
Drivers in the most populous U.S. state are paying more at the pump than anyone else. California’s gas taxes and its strict clean-air policies don’t explain away all of the $1.23-a-gallon difference.
www.wsj.com
California’s retail gas price was $4.32 a gallon in December 2022, while it was $3.09 a gallon on average elsewhere in the U.S. That is a $1.23-per-gallon difference. There are some quantifiable sources of the California premium. Higher state gas taxes are one reason. The state’s clean air policies are another. These include a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse-gas emissions, a low-carbon fuel standard and a fee for the abatement of leaking underground storage. California also mandates a cleaner-burning gasoline, which adds around 10 cents a gallon.
Tally all of those California-specific costs up, though, and it comes out to about $1.09 a gallon, or 80 cents more than what the average state gas tax is elsewhere in the U.S., according to calculations by Prof. Severin Borenstein at the University of California Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, based on the monthly average for December 2022.
California is a unique state . . . their air pollution issues preceded and surpassed similar issues elsewhere. The question you seem to be posing is whether cost should be primary, if not the only, factor to consider in setting policy.If I understand this correctly, isn't the way gasoline is handled in California similar? In other words, producers/suppliers abide by stricter regulations for California specifically, and therefore, charge higher prices for wholesale gasoline products (see below)? In other words, pork producers need to abide by California laws & regs but are likely to charge a premium that will be borne by the California consumer (in theory) to ensure their production meets California requirements?
California Has a Gas-Price Mystery: Too High, but Why?
Drivers in the most populous U.S. state are paying more at the pump than anyone else. California’s gas taxes and its strict clean-air policies don’t explain away all of the $1.23-a-gallon difference.
California’s retail gas price was $4.32 a gallon in December 2022, while it was $3.09 a gallon on average elsewhere in the U.S. That is a $1.23-per-gallon difference. There are some quantifiable sources of the California premium. Higher state gas taxes are one reason. The state’s clean air policies are another. These include a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse-gas emissions, a low-carbon fuel standard and a fee for the abatement of leaking underground storage. California also mandates a cleaner-burning gasoline, which adds around 10 cents a gallon.
Tally all of those California-specific costs up, though, and it comes out to about $1.09 a gallon, or 80 cents more than what the average state gas tax is elsewhere in the U.S., according to calculations by Prof. Severin Borenstein at the University of California Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, based on the monthly average for December 2022.
You might not have been around when California set the initial air pollution standards. But those of us who remember the smog that used to be present in LA do. Cost is just the price we have to pay to have breathable air.
When someone complains about water regs, flip them this picture and story. I was 14 at the time . . . an impressionable age.If I understand this correctly, isn't the way gasoline is handled in California similar? In other words, producers/suppliers abide by stricter regulations for California specifically, and therefore, charge higher prices for wholesale gasoline products (see below)? In other words, pork producers need to abide by California laws & regs but are likely to charge a premium that will be borne by the California consumer (in theory) to ensure their production meets California requirements?
California Has a Gas-Price Mystery: Too High, but Why?
Drivers in the most populous U.S. state are paying more at the pump than anyone else. California’s gas taxes and its strict clean-air policies don’t explain away all of the $1.23-a-gallon difference.
California’s retail gas price was $4.32 a gallon in December 2022, while it was $3.09 a gallon on average elsewhere in the U.S. That is a $1.23-per-gallon difference. There are some quantifiable sources of the California premium. Higher state gas taxes are one reason. The state’s clean air policies are another. These include a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse-gas emissions, a low-carbon fuel standard and a fee for the abatement of leaking underground storage. California also mandates a cleaner-burning gasoline, which adds around 10 cents a gallon.
Tally all of those California-specific costs up, though, and it comes out to about $1.09 a gallon, or 80 cents more than what the average state gas tax is elsewhere in the U.S., according to calculations by Prof. Severin Borenstein at the University of California Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, based on the monthly average for December 2022.
The Cuyahoga River Caught Fire at Least a Dozen Times, but No One Cared Until 1969
Despite being much smaller than previous fires, the river blaze in Cleveland 50 years ago became a symbol for the nascent environmental movement
BP was just fined $40 million for dumping benzene into lake Michigan. It only causes cancer in children. Who cares if it's in Chicagos water supply?? It's about time these limey bastards were hammered for this. $40 million in fines and forced to install $197 million in new safety equipment so it hopefully doesn't happen again.When someone complains about water regs, flip them this picture and story. I was 14 at the time . . . an impressionable age.
The Cuyahoga River Caught Fire at Least a Dozen Times, but No One Cared Until 1969
Despite being much smaller than previous fires, the river blaze in Cleveland 50 years ago became a symbol for the nascent environmental movementwww.smithsonianmag.com
But yeah regulations are the problem.
BP subsidiary agrees to record $40M penalty and pollution-cutting steps at Lake Michigan refinery
Federal officials say a BP subsidiary will pay a $40 million penalty and install technology to control the release of benzene and other contaminants at its Whiting oil refinery in northern Indiana. The actions announced Wednesday will settle a civil case against BP Products North America Inc. It...
apnews.com
BP was just fined $40 million for dumping benzene into lake Michigan. It only causes cancer in children. Who cares if it's in Chicagos water supply?? It's about time these limey bastards were hammered for this. $40 million in fines and forced to install $197 million in new safety equipment so it hopefully doesn't happen again.
But yeah regulations are the problem.
BP subsidiary agrees to record $40M penalty and pollution-cutting steps at Lake Michigan refinery
Federal officials say a BP subsidiary will pay a $40 million penalty and install technology to control the release of benzene and other contaminants at its Whiting oil refinery in northern Indiana. The actions announced Wednesday will settle a civil case against BP Products North America Inc. It...
How is that equivalent to how pigs or chickens (other suits and claims), are raised for food?
Used to represent BP in some software negotiations . . . BP has offices in Chicago . . . and Naperville.BP was just fined $40 million for dumping benzene into lake Michigan. It only causes cancer in children. Who cares if it's in Chicagos water supply?? It's about time these limey bastards were hammered for this. $40 million in fines and forced to install $197 million in new safety equipment so it hopefully doesn't happen again.
But yeah regulations are the problem.
BP subsidiary agrees to record $40M penalty and pollution-cutting steps at Lake Michigan refinery
Federal officials say a BP subsidiary will pay a $40 million penalty and install technology to control the release of benzene and other contaminants at its Whiting oil refinery in northern Indiana. The actions announced Wednesday will settle a civil case against BP Products North America Inc. It...
It doesnt. Was Responding to sope and his EPA/Cuyahoga river comment. Sorry for the thread jack.
I'm not necessarily saying that cost should be a factor in policy making (though I could make an argument for why it should). I'm simply pointing out that California has effectively done this before. Citizens bearing an incremental cost is a matter of choice (they are choosing to live in California and elect the politicians that draft these laws and regs).
No problem. FWIW, seems like BP got off WAY too cheaply and easily IMO, though I haven't read all of the facts and circumstances. These types of disasters SHOULD cause bankruptcy to be in play, even for large companies like that.
Yep. And he industry decides whether to make the California standards applicable to the other states.
In lending, the industry has said it will comply with other states' regs rather than apply California regs. That may be because California isn't the most restrictive across the board in lending.
Even if California regs were the most stringent, I assume someone was tasked with doing an analysis that compares the cost of applying the most strict standards across the lender vs. having ad hoc compliance based on each states' regs.
I've never done these, but read a few and the cost differential is always surprisingly close (my experience is more with healthcare compliance regs).
I dunno . . . we never did in the lending industry. My guess? It probably depends on the industry.
We didn't probably because there was no "most stringent" standard in the lending industry.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Keir Starmer: "We need to reduce immigration - significantly."
- Latest: crazed_hoosier2