{"id":11120,"date":"2022-04-25T01:42:09","date_gmt":"2022-04-25T06:42:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=11120"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:14:41","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:14:41","slug":"us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/","title":{"rendered":"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"

On March 28, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in\u00a0National Pork Producers v. Ross<\/em>, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12 (Prop 12).\u00a0 To hear more about animal confinement statutes generally and Prop 12 specifically, click here<\/a> for a podcast episode I did with Beth Rumley from the National Agricultural Law Center.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Image by William Murphy<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prop 12, passed by California voters in 2018, makes it illegal to sell pork in California unless the pig from which it comes was born to a sow housed with 24 square feet of space and in conditions to let her turn around freely and not touch the pen.\u00a0 (The law imposes requirements on chickens and veal as well, but those are not at issue in this case).\u00a0 Any pork sale in California not meeting these requirements is a crime punishable by a fine or jail sentence.\u00a0 Sellers can also face a civil damages action.<\/p>\n

According to the Petition, California consumes about 13% of pork in the US, it has only about 0.133% of the national breeding herd.\u00a0 Further, Petitioners state that very few production facilities in the nation satisfy the spacing requirements of Proposition 12, and that converting to do so would be extremely expensive.<\/p>\n

Dormant Commerce Clause<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states.\u00a0 Although the Constitution does not expressly prohibit state law impacting interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has always interpreted the Commerce Clause to implicitly preempt state laws that “regulate commerce in a manner disruptive to economic activities in the nation as a whole.”\u00a0 This is known as the “dormant Commerce Clause.”\u00a0 There are essentially two parts to the dormant Commerce Clause: (1) states may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and (2) states may not impose undue burdens on interstate commerce.\u00a0 A state law may violate the dormant commerce clause when it has “extraterritorial effects.”\u00a0 Additionally, the\u00a0Pike<\/em> balancing test provides that\u00a0a state law that regulates “even-handedly to effectual a legitimate local public interest” will be upheld unless the burden imposed on commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the intended local benefits.<\/p>\n

Litigation\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Petitioners National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) challenged Prop 12 as violating the dormant Commerce Clause.<\/p>\n

The trial court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.<\/p>\n

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that dismissal in 2021. [<\/span>Read Opinion here<\/a>.]\u00a0 Specifically, the Ninth Circuit based this on three determinations.\u00a0 First, Petitioners’ interpretation of the Healy<\/em> case was overly broad and limited the application of that case to situations involving price control or affirmation statutes, which Prop 12 is not.\u00a0 Second, the Court held that significant upstream effects outside the state do not violate the Commerce Clause even if the burden of the law falls primarily on other states so long as the only conduct regulated\u00a0 is that in California.\u00a0 Here, although producers nationwide would face those upstream effects, the only conduct regulated, the court held, was pork sales within California.\u00a0 Finally, with regard to the\u00a0Pike<\/em> balancing test, the court found there was no “significant burden on interstate commerce” because it deemed the increase costs not to qualify for dormant Commerce Clause purposes.\u00a0 Thus, because the court found no burden to weigh, it did not consider the importance of the law as articulated by California.<\/p>\n

Petition for Certiorari<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Petitioners argue that Prop 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause in two ways.\u00a0 [Read Petition here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

First, they argue, it is impermissibly extraterritorial.\u00a0 Because nearly all of the pork sold in California is imported from other states, Prop 12 “in practical effect regulates wholly out-of-state commerce.”\u00a0 Petitioners allege that it requires “massive and costly” alteration to swine facilities nationwide, having a financial impact on farms and businesses with no connection to California.\u00a0 Moreover, they contend, Prop 12 will be “policed by intrusive inspections of out-of-state farms conducted by California’s agents.”\u00a0 The Petition states that, “if any law violates the dormant Commerce Clause’s extraterritoriality principle because of its practical effects on commerce in other states, it is Proposition 12…”\u00a0 Further, if the Ninth Circuit opinion stands, Petitioners argue, they have essentially eviscerated the essential protections provided by the dormant Commerce Clause’s extraterritoriality doctrine.\u00a0 They argue the Ninth Circuit’s opinion conflicts with US Supreme Court precedent as well as causes a circuit split among federal courts.<\/p>\n

Second, Petitioners argue that the law fails the\u00a0Pike<\/em> balancing test articulated by the Court.\u00a0 Prop 12, they say, has no human health rationale and rests “only on philosophical preferences about conduct occurring almost entirely outside California.”\u00a0 Neither of these, they argue, outweigh the “wrenching effect of the law on interstate commerce.”\u00a0 Again, the Petitioners argue that the Ninth Circuit impermissibly narrowed the scope of the\u00a0Pike\u00a0<\/em> balancing test by refusing to consider increased costs as a qualifying factor.<\/p>\n

In light of this, the Petitioners argue that “the Ninth Circuit’s dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence has gone off track.”<\/p>\n

Response by California\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The State of California filed a Response.\u00a0 [Read Response here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

They argue that the Petitioners’ extraterritoriality challenge does not warrant review.\u00a0 In particular, they argue that the Ninth Circuit correctly ruled that Prop 12 does not have any impermissible extraterritorial threats.\u00a0 The State argues there is not a circuit split as the Petition claims.\u00a0 The State argues that Prop 12 is “an in-state sales restriction” that “does not have impermissible extraterritorial reach merely because some out-of-state businesses will opt to modify their production or distribution practices in order to serve the enacting State’s market.”\u00a0 The State points to other state laws across the country that may have ripple effects both within the enacting estate and elsewhere, such labeling or quality requirements.\u00a0 The State also questions the Petition’s claim that it would be impossible for pork producers to segregate their operations and produce California-specific products that comply with Prop 12.\u00a0 They argue the Petitioners failed to offer evidence to support this claim, and point to various large businesses now requiring supply chain specializations and to pork producers and supplies who have announced they will comply with the Prop 12 restrictions.<\/p>\n

The State also notes that Prop 12 does not expressly provide for any out-of-state inspections by California officials to ensure compliance with Prop 12.\u00a0 Such inspections are merely part of a proposed regulation from the California Departments of Food and Agriculture and Public Health.\u00a0 If the final version includes similar language, the Petitioners can challenge said regulations at that time.<\/p>\n

The State also argues the “dramatic economic effects” that the Petitioners claim does not satisfy the\u00a0Pike<\/em> balancing test.\u00a0 Further, the State claims the Petitioners “overstate the practical economic effects of Proposition 12.”<\/p>\n

Finally, the State rebuts the Petitioner’s assertion that Prop 12 has no health-related justification, offering as an example the fact that close confinement of animals may increase the spread of disease between hogs, which can create threats to human health as well.<\/p>\n

Response by HSUS<\/strong><\/p>\n

A group of non-government intervenors including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, The Humane League, Farm Sanctuary, Compassion in World Farming UA, and Animal Outlook, intervened as a party to the case and also filed a response opposing the Petition for Certiorari. [Read Brief here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

The Intervenors offer two primary arguments:\u00a0 (1) The case does not present the questions the Petition asserts; and (2)\u00a0Pike<\/em> balancing test.<\/p>\n

First, they argue that there is no circuit split as argued by the Petitioners and the Ninth Circuit has not imposed the limitations Petitioners’ claim on the dormant commerce clause analysis.\u00a0 They also argue that the lower court correctly applied precedent from the US Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Next, they claim that Petitioners “falsely represent” Prop 12 as directed “exclusively to humane treatment, urging that the dormant Commerce Clause prohibits States from banning the in-state sale of a product based solely on moral concerns about how it was produced.”\u00a0 On the contrary, the Intervenors argue, Prop 12 serves to prevent animal cruelty, but also addresses threats to consumer’s health caused by confinement of animals, which is “unquestionably a valid state interest.”<\/p>\n

Then, similar to the State’s brief, they question the Petitioners’ claims of impacts arising from Prop 12, including claims that segmenting supply chains to separate pork that can be sold in California would be impossible. They also question the claim that Prop 12 will require every US pork consumer to pay for California’s proposed housing, noting that producers could continue to sell pork outside of California without making any changes.\u00a0 The brief also notes that major pork producers Tyson Foods and Hormel either comply or have noted that coming into compliance is “not significant.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On March 28, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in\u00a0National Pork Producers v. Ross, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12 (Prop 12).\u00a0 To hear more about animal confinement statutes generally and Prop 12 specifically, click here for a podcast episode I did with Beth Rumley from the National Agricultural Law Center. Background Prop 12, passed by California voters in 2018, makes it illegal to sell pork in California unless the pig from which it comes was born to a sow housed… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2444,"featured_media":11116,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-united-states-supreme-court-decisions"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nUS Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On March 28, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in\u00a0National Pork Producers v. Ross, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12 (Prop 12).\u00a0 To hear more about animal confinement statutes generally and Prop 12 specifically, click here for a podcast episode I did with Beth Rumley from the National Agricultural Law Center. Background Prop 12, passed by California voters in 2018, makes it illegal to sell pork in California unless the pig from which it comes was born to a sow housed... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-04-25T06:42:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:14:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/03\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"426\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\"},\"headline\":\"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-25T06:42:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:14:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1437,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"United States Supreme Court Decisions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/\",\"name\":\"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-25T06:42:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:14:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":426,\"caption\":\"Image by William Murphy from Pixabay\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/25\\\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowell\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"On March 28, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in\u00a0National Pork Producers v. Ross, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 12 (Prop 12).\u00a0 To hear more about animal confinement statutes generally and Prop 12 specifically, click here for a podcast episode I did with Beth Rumley from the National Agricultural Law Center. Background Prop 12, passed by California voters in 2018, makes it illegal to sell pork in California unless the pig from which it comes was born to a sow housed... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2022-04-25T06:42:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:14:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":426,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/03\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowell","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowell","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowell","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73"},"headline":"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge","datePublished":"2022-04-25T06:42:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:14:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/"},"wordCount":1437,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/03\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg","articleSection":["United States Supreme Court Decisions"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/","name":"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/03\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg","datePublished":"2022-04-25T06:42:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:14:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/03\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2022\/03\/us-ge54c34ede_640.jpg","width":640,"height":426,"caption":"Image by William Murphy from Pixabay"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2022\/04\/25\/us-supreme-court-will-hear-proposition-12-challenge\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"US Supreme Court Will Hear Proposition 12 Challenge"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73","name":"tiffany.dowell","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowell\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11120","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2444"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11120"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11120\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14888,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11120\/revisions\/14888"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11116"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}