California voters approved Proposition 12 by a decisive 63% margin, establishing minimum space requirements for farm animals and restricting the sale of pork, eggs, and veal produced from animals confined in spaces smaller than those standards. For pork producers, the law effectively prohibits the sale of meat from pigs born to sows housed in gestation crates that fail to meet California’s requirements. State regulators and many pork processors have maintained that California’s pork demand can be supplied under Proposition 12, although compliance costs may contribute to somewhat higher prices—much as California consumers often pay premiums for products produced under stricter standards. Opponents of Proposition 12 vowed to challenge the law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2023, however, the Court upheld the measure in a closely divided 5–4 decision.Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch concluded that states have broad authority to regulate products sold within their borders, even when those regulations affect producers in other states. The Court rejected arguments that the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause bars statesfrom adopting non-discriminatory laws simply because they impose compliance costs on a national industry. While the Constitution prohibits economic protectionism, the Court held that it does not prevent voters from restricting products they believe are produced through practices they consider cruel or unethical, provided the law applies equally to in-state and out-of-state businesses.Having failed in the courts, opponents have shifted their efforts to Congress. Language included in proposed Farm Bill legislation—often referred to by supporters as the “Save Our Bacon” provision—would limit states’ ability to impose production standards on agricultural products sold within their borders. Critics argue that the provision would effectively overturn Proposition 12 and similar state laws. The debate has attracted national attention. In a New York Times opinion essay titled “America’s Livestock Gulag,” columnist Nicholas Kristof argued that “the pork industry istrying to pull a fast one with this year’s farm bill,” citing polling that found strong public opposition to housing pregnant sows in gestation crates. A common misconception is that gestation crates are necessary to prevent sows from crushing piglets. That concern is generally addressed through the use of farrowing crates, which are used for a relatively short period around birth and weaning. Gestation crates, by contrast, typically confine pregnant sows in narrow metal enclosures for their 114- day pregnancy. Many pork producers in Europe have adapted to alternative housing systemsfollowing restrictions or bans on gestation crates. The question now moves from the courtroom to Capitol Hill: Should Congress override the will of voters and the Supreme Court’s ruling through the Farm Bill, or should states retain the authority to establish animal welfare standards for products sold within their borders?For listeners seeking a broader and balanced discussion of pig housing systems, we also recommend our earlier conversation with Dr. Pete Lammers of the University of Wisconsin–Platteville, who explores the practical, economic, and animal welfare dimensions of providing space for pigs.