USDA Flags Prop 12 Risks for Farmers

USDA leaders say state rules like Prop 12 weaken interstate trade and harm farmers

A recent webinar hosted by the National Agricultural Law Center highlighted growing concerns over California Proposition 12 and its impact on U.S. agriculture. During the discussion, USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden again raised serious warnings about the law’s constitutionality and its broader effects on farmers, markets, and consumers. 

Proposition 12 sets animal housing standards that apply not only to California producers but also to farms in other states that sell products into the California market. According to USDA officials, this creates a form of domestic trade barrier that goes against the idea of a unified national market.  

"While the United States is working to knock down foreign trade barriers, some states are simultaneously enacting domestic trade barriers, such as California's Proposition 12," said Vaden.  

USDA leadership believes the Supreme Court decision that allowed Proposition 12 to stand was incorrect. The concerns focus on both procedural issues and how the law relates to the Dormant Commerce Clause, which is meant to prevent states from interfering with interstate trade. Importantly, USDA officials stressed that opposition to Proposition 12 is not a partisan issue. Leaders from both major political parties have previously expressed concerns about the law’s constitutionality. 

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) has strongly echoed these warnings. Without a clear legal or legislative fix, the pork industry expects serious consequences. Higher production costs could force some farm families out of business, especially smaller operations that cannot easily afford new facility investments. These added costs are also expected to reach consumers, with estimates suggesting pork prices could rise by as much as 41 percent for certain products. 

"This internal protectionism is what led to the demise of the Articles of Confederation. If one state can block products from another state, the country ceases to function as a unified national market,” said Vaden. 

"I strongly believe the Supreme Court got the Prop. 12 decision wrong, both on procedural grounds and in its interpretation of the Dormant Commerce Clause issue. This is not a partisan issue,” said Vaden.  

“Democrats and Republicans, including President Trump and former President Biden, agree that California's law is unconstitutional. USDA expects continued litigation as underlying constitutional issues remain unresolved," said Vaden. The organization expects continued legal challenges, as key constitutional questions remain unresolved. 

Overall, the debate over Proposition 12 highlights the balance between state-level regulations and national agricultural markets. For farmers and consumers alike, the outcome will play a major role in shaping food affordability, farm sustainability, and the future of interstate agricultural trade in the United States.

Photo Credit: deputy-secretary-vaden