California’s Proposition 12, enacted in 2018, mandated that all pork sold in the state must be sourced from free-range pigs. The recent debate centered on the extension of this law's reach. The Supreme Justices were tasked with determining the ethical justification for limiting the free space of these pigs. On May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict. This group, in a decision of profound importance, supported the provision of larger space, prevailing over the other group with a vote of 5 to 4, which rejected two trade groups’ proposals to deny Proposition 12. 

There are multiple issues at stake in this case. The primary one is the impact of California's law on interstate commerce. The law not only regulates in-state pork production but also affects products produced outside of California when sold within the state. Given that California accounts for 13 percent of national pork consumption, this law imposes a significant cost on interstate commerce, potentially hindering the healthy trading relationship between states. The case also involves the conflict between a state's right to regulate practices within its borders and the limits imposed by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. While states have the authority to regulate matters within their borders, the Constitution places certain limits on state laws that might affect interstate trade. This concept is known as the Dormant Commerce Clause. Finally, a concern over the balance of economic benefits and the moral disciplines also arises. The extraterritorial farmers can significantly reduce the cost of raising pigs by constraining them in an enclosed area without any protections. However, harsh conditions can severely affect their physical strength and put them in danger of getting numerous diseases for having low resistance to bacteria. Now the Supreme Court acknowledges the annexation of Proposition 12, stating that all the merchants selling pork to California need to extend the space for each pig to 24 square feet of area. Farmers should obey this law since domestic animals are creatures capable of feeling sentiments like sadness, suffering, and joy. Many animals’ fates, including the pigs, end with the systematic slaying of the machines which are turned into various kinds of food. Accompanying their death, they perceive unimaginable physical and physiological harm, so people should at least treat them well before they die. American culture and belief systems emphasize the ethical and moral duty to treat all living beings with respect and kindness. Protecting animal welfare aligns with these values and principles, promoting a just and compassionate society. Even more importantly, as faithful Catholics, many Americans obey the rules and ethics that Jesus and other saints established, including one concept, called the “Stewardship of Creation”. They believe that God created the world, including animals, and entrusted humans with the responsibility to care for and protect them. Recognizing this, farmers have a moral responsibility to lower animals’ pains and promote their well-being. 

Organizations like the Humane Society of the United States support the enactment, underscoring its significance in stimulating public health. When people supply proper conditions and care to breed pigs, the risk of transmitting diseases from animals to humans declines. Another online newspaper says that “animals play a crucial role in maintaining the balance of ecosystems.” If animals flourish under people’s care, the overall biodiversity will bloom with increasing biomass, which indicates that better animal welfare generates a healthy ecosystem. As a result, protecting animals can contribute to a healthier environment and ensure the sustainability of our planet.

On the other hand, this law has several drawbacks. To obtain enough space, as stipulated in the law, the suppliers spend significantly more money building facilities to contain these animals, causing their prime cost to grow. The resulting growth in production cost will lead to higher prices of pork. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his companions assert that the “sweeping extraterritorial effects” of the law warranted sending the case back to the appeals court to consider whether the burdens it imposed outweighed its benefits. This law even raises questions about the boundaries between state regulations and interstate commerce: it creates a precedent for a law inside one state to be imposed on another, which could generate panic among the states and force them to establish policies that protect the interests of their residents. In that way, interstate commerce tends to decrease, and trading policies will become more conservative (not a good sign for a growing economy).  

Some people hold implicit bias toward animals, considering them to have a lower moral status than humans. Nevertheless, animals, which can breathe, jump, and perceive their surroundings just like human beings, should be treated in the same way and be granted the same freedoms. The virtue of compassion and tolerance towards the more vulnerable ones plays an important role, especially when breeding pigs that exhibit no danger. Suppose a circumstance where a pig is locked in a filthy cage with no area to move. When the same situation occurs for humans, no one can bear this for more than three days. Observing this issue from a humanitarian perspective, I find an emergency and desperation for the establishment of a well-developed system for the poor-treated pigs.