-
TotalEnergies profit hits record on high oil prices
-
Taiwan says Pakistan briefly closed airspace to Taiwanese flights
-
Afghanistan opium poppy cultivation surges despite Taliban govt ban: UN
-
Samsung logs record quarterly profits despite investor AI jitters
-
Microsoft beats expectations fueled by Azure cloud business
-
Shares in Google owner Alphabet plummet on profit miss, ad slowdown
-
Shares in Google owner Alphabet sink on profit miss, ad slowdown
-
US Fed holds interest rates steady despite 'too high' inflation
-
Pioneering US labor leader Dolores Huerta dies at 96
-
Airbus aims for record deliveries despite disappointing quarter
-
US Fed holds interest rates steady despite surging inflation
-
Real Madrid, La Liga apology over Mbappe shows power of Chinese market
-
US labor leader Dolores Huerta dead: family
-
'Cruise for life' strands passengers in Cambodia as operator goes bust
-
French firm Safran helps build aircraft wings of the future in UK factory
-
Canada hikes rates to contain oil price surge caused by Iran war
-
World Bank warns of worsening food insecurity as commodity prices soar
-
Nintendo producer 'all nervous' as Zelda classic remake hits shelves
-
Billionaire Ambani's Jio soars in market debut after India's biggest IPO
-
Three killed by storm in southern India
Supreme Court ponders the fate of pigs, high cost of bacon
A California law aimed at reducing animal suffering on pig farms led to some unusual exchanges Tuesday in the US Supreme Court.
Following a grassroots referendum, California passed an animal welfare measure in 2018 that bans the sale of pork from pigs that were raised in overly confined spaces.
The pork industry had gone to court accusing California -- which produces little of the pork it consumes -- of restricting interstate commerce and trying to impose its values on other US states.
The sector fears that California will effectively set national standards for conditions in which farm animals, including cows and chickens, are kept, thus raising ham and bacon prices for consumers.
Pork producers, after being rejected by state courts, turned to the Supreme Court, which seemed baffled by the case.
For nearly two hours, the nine justices pondered the criteria that would allow comparable cases to be resolved in the future.
The result was a series of highly political hypothetical scenarios.
Progressive Justice Elena Kagan wondered what would happen if Democratic states banned the sale of goods made by non-unionized workers.
Her conservative colleague Amy Coney Barrett imagined that they would ban goods from companies that did not fund medical care for their transgender employees.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, speculated that Republican states might ban products created by undocumented immigrants.
Perplexity peaked when Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the pork market was already regulated.
"We have marketed already pork marked as organic, crate-free, antibiotic-free and beta-agonist free," she said. "I have no idea what that means, but I know it's there. I've seen it in supermarkets."
The high court will return a decision before June 30.
L.Peeters--CPN