North American Meat Institute v. Xavier Becerra ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 15 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORTH AMERICAN MEAT No. 19-56408
INSTITUTE,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:19-cv-08569-CAS-FFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of California;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE
UNITED STATES; et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants-
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 5, 2020
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO,** District
Judge.
North American Meat Institute (NAMI) appeals the district court’s denial of
its motion for a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that NAMI was
unlikely to succeed on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim. NAMI
acknowledges that Proposition 12 is not facially discriminatory. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Proposition 12 does not have a
discriminatory purpose given the lack of evidence that the state had a protectionist
intent. Given the inconsistencies in dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on Association des Eleveurs de
Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2013), to hold that
Proposition 12 does not have a discriminatory effect because it treats in-state meat
producers the same as out-of-state meat producers. See Cal. Health & Safety Code
§ 25990(b); Wayfair v. South Dakota, 138 S. Ct. 2080, 2100–01 (2018) (Gorsuch,
J., concurring).
**
The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge
for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
2
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Proposition
12 does not directly regulate extraterritorial conduct because it is not a price
control or price affirmation statute. See Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 336
(1989); Pharm. Rsch. & Mfrs. of Am. v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644, 669–70 (2003).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in holding that Proposition
12 does not substantially burden interstate commerce. Proposition 12 does not
impact an industry that is inherently national or requires a uniform system of
regulation. See Pac. Nw. Venison Producers v. Smitch, 20 F.3d 1008, 1014–15
(9th Cir. 1994). It was not an abuse of discretion to conclude that Proposition 12
does not create a substantial burden because the law precludes sales of meat
products produced by a specified method, rather than imposing a burden on
producers based on their geographical origin. See Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397
U.S. 137, 145 (1970).
Finally, because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it held
that NAMI was unlikely to succeed on the merits, the district court did not err
when it refused to consider the other preliminary injunction factors. See Glob.
Horizons, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 510 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
3