The Supreme Court’s Business Docket

“These pens,” the groups challenging the California law wrote in a Supreme Court brief, “provide around 14 square feet of space and — for hygiene, safety, and animal-welfare and husbandry reasons — do not allow the sow to turn around.”

Given the size of California’s market, pork producers say, the state effectively seeks to regulate businesses outside its territory in violation the Constitution.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, rejected the argument that the law’s out-of-state effects made it invalid. “State laws that regulate only conduct in the state, including the sale of products in the state, do not have impermissible extraterritorial effects,” Judge Sandra S. Ikuta wrote for the panel.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could have implications for many other laws, including state laws addressing climate change and out-of-state travel to obtain abortions.

The businesses impact of two marquee cases

Two cases on social controversies that have gotten a lot of attention also have big business implications. In a major challenge to affirmative action programs, the court may strike down the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. There may well be spillover effects for employers seeking to assemble diverse workforces.

The pipeline of highly credentialed minority candidates would tighten, defenders of the programs argued, and, depending on the logic of the ruling, employers’ diversity efforts could be challenged under a federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination.

A brief supporting the universities filed by scores of companies, including Apple, General Motors, Google, Meta Platforms and Starbucks, said they relied on leading colleges and universities to train diverse leaders and that “racial and ethnic diversity enhance business performance.”

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/business/dealbook/supreme-court-business-cases.html