Michael Knoll, Theodore K. Warner Professor of Law and Professor of Real Estate, recently co-authored “Is the Biggest Supreme Court Case This Term About Bacon?,” published in The Regulatory Review.
In the piece, Knoll and co-author Ruth Mason of the University of Virginia Law School, explore the potential ramifications of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision In National Pork Council v. Ross, in which the Court questions whether states can ban products for moral reasons.
From The Regulatory Review:
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, a Ninth Circuit case out of California dismissing a challenge to Proposition 12, which bans the sale of whole pork from the offspring of breeding sows confined in a manner that California voters consider “cruel.”
bans pork produced in a manner that California voters consider immoral.National Pork might appear to be just another dormant Commerce Clause case, but it has the potential to change the nature of regulation throughout the United States. That is because Proposition 12 does not ban pork that has arguably harmful health effects on Californians, but rather it
The combination of those two elements — (1) a ban based not on a characteristic of the product, but rather on an aspect of the production process, and (2) relying on moral disapproval, rather than more traditional and tangible concerns, such as promoting the health and safety of residents or protecting the local environment — makes National Pork a potentially far-reaching case… .
Knoll is the Co-Director of the Center for Tax Law and Policy, and his recent research includes writings on sovereign wealth funds, private equity, international tax arbitrage, and the impact of the corporate income tax on the competitiveness of the U.S. auto industry.
The Regulatory Review is the flagship publication of the Penn Program on Regulation.