(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court justices appeared deeply conflicted on Tuesday over the treatment of pregnant pigs, the prices consumers pay at the grocery store and California’s attempt to shape the pork industry with a ban on meat from mother sows kept in too narrowly confined spaces.

An oral argument in the case, National Pork Producers v. Ross, was scheduled for 70 minutes — but stretched to nearly double that as a consequential debate played out, pitting California voters’ moral views against a critical national industry that feeds millions of Americans every year.

At issue is California’s Proposition 12, passed in 2018, which would ban the sale of all pork from mother pigs housed in cages or crowded group pens with less than 24-square-feet each — the amount of room needed for an animal to turn around. Animal welfare advocates have called the confinement “cruelty.”

The nation’s $20-billion pork industry wants the justices to strike down the legislation, contending its example would empower other states to enforce their regulations and values nationwide.

“If Proposition 12 is lawful,” warned attorney Timothy Bishop, representing the National Pork Producers Council, “Oregon can condition imports on workers being paid the minimum wage. And Texas can condition sales on the producer employing only lawful U.S. residents. And at that point, we have truly abandoned the framers’ idea of a national market.”

While 63% of California voters approved Prop 12, it would have the biggest impact elsewhere: the Golden State consumes 13% of U.S. pork, the largest market in the country, but produces just 1%, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Farmers in heavy pork-producing states like Iowa, Minnesota and North Carolina say it will cost billions of dollars to retool their operations to comply with California’s law, resulting in less efficient production and, in turn, higher store prices for consumers.

“Even if it’s only $0.25 a pound or something, that adds up quite a bit over time,” economist Barry Goodwin, a professor at North Carolina State University who specializes in the pork industry, told ABC News.

The Biden administration has taken the side of pork farmers, concerned, they say, that a single state should not be allowed to upend a major American industry.

The Constitution’s so-called “dormant” commerce clause has been widely interpreted to prohibit states from passing laws that would have an excessive impact on interstate trade or the economic interests of other states.

The Supreme Court’s view of the clause will be key to the fate of Prop 12. Several of the justices indicated Tuesday that they shared the pork-producing industry’s concerns.

Justice Samuel Alito suggested he worried about the law setting off a tit-for-tat among states. “Could a state say, ‘We’re really concerned about water shortages, so we’re going to prohibit … the sale within our borders of any almonds where the trees are irrigated’?” Alito asked.

“If it’s focused on the sale within their borders,” replied California Solicitor General Michael Mongan, “I think that the logical conclusion of our position is that they could do that.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised hypotheticals, too: “What about a law that says, ‘You can’t sell fruit in our state if it’s produced — handled — by people who are not in the country legally’? Is that state law permissible?”

Justice Elena Kagan, noting we “live in a divided country,” worried about “balkanization.”

“Do we want to live in a world where we’re constantly at each other’s throats and, you know, Texas is at war with California and California at war with Texas?” she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts focused on what he saw as the role “morality” plays in California’s regulatory approach.

“I think people in some states, maybe the ones that produce a lot of pork, in Iowa or North Carolina or Indiana, may think there’s a moral value in providing a low-cost source of protein to people, maybe particularly at times of rising food prices,” Roberts said. “But under your analysis, it’s California’s view of morality that prevails over the views of people in other states because of the market power that they have.”

At the same time, many of the justices seemed to agree that states should have broad leeway in taking steps to protect the health and safety of residents as they see fit. California voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 12, in part, based on arguments that confinement of pigs is harmful to human health.

“I know you’re going to tell me there’s no scientific proof, but there is certainly a reasonable basis for these people to think this,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“We don’t think there’s a reasonable basis,” Bishop, the pork industry attorney, replied.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed most inclined to side with California. “Californians … voted for this law,” he said. “They don’t wish to have California be complicit, even indirectly, in livestock practices that they find abhorrent, wherever they occur, in California or anywhere else. Why isn’t that a correct understanding of California’s asserted moral interest and why isn’t that an in-state moral interest?”

The justices could narrowly decide the case by simply allowing the pork producers’ legal challenge to move forward and go to trial in lower courts, saying little else and stopping short of a conclusion on the legality of California’s law.

The high court could, alternatively, take a more sweeping approach and clarify a test for when and how a state law violates the Constitution’s commerce clause, perhaps deciding the fate of Prop 12 outright.

During Tuesday’s arguments, several of the justices appeared to feel out a middle ground.

“Why can’t California solve for its morality issue in a different way,” asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, “[and] simply allow California to express its morality interest through a less burdensome means, like segregating Iowa’s pork when it comes in, putting a big label over it that says ‘this is immorally produced’ or whatever — and that won’t hurt Iowa as much? Why can’t we say that that’s the way this should be?”

As the court took up the case, there were already signs market forces and consumer preferences have been nudging producers toward what animal advocates consider more ethical practices.

“They need more farmers doing it this way to meet the demand,” Ruth Jovaag, co-owner of the Jovaag Family Farm in Austin, Minnesota, previously told ABC News. “There’s not enough supply.”

The Jovaag Family Farm is part of the Niman Ranch network of family farmers who specialize in certified “humanely-raised” pigs and other animals. They abandoned gestation stalls, or crates, years ago and now give pregnant sows more than 60-square-feet each, piles of comfortable hay and fresh air and sunlight.

Mike Boerboom, a third-generation hog farmer who raises thousands of sows in confinement every year, hopes the justices will conclude that Californians have gone too far.

“We produce a lot of food to feed the rest of the country,” he told ABC. “It’s California today,” he added, “but are there going to be more mandates that come potentially from every other state? That’s the fear.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Biden administration officials on Tuesday previewed the Department of Education’s much anticipated student loan forgiveness application process, which they said would be “easy,” “straightforward” and resistant to fraud.

But the officials did not signal when the loan cancellation applications would be available online beyond saying it would be sometime in October. That is a delay from an earlier timeline that the forms would be released by early October.

In a call with reporters organized by the White House, senior administration officials said that they expect it will take “a matter of weeks” after someone applies for them to receive loan forgiveness.

Still, the officials reiterated that eligible borrowers should apply by mid-November to ensure their loan amounts are canceled before repayments resume on Jan. 1, 2023, after a nearly three-year pause during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We hope and expect to deliver student debt relief to millions of Americans before the loan repayments restart,” one official said on the call.

The government has urged people to double-check their contact information online to ensure they receive timely updates when the application is ready.

Student loan forgiveness ap… by ABC News Politics

Under the forgiveness plan, people who made less than $125,000 in the 2020 or 2021 tax year — or less than $250,000 as a couple — will be eligible to cancel up to $10,000 in federal student loan debt or up to $20,000 for people with Pell grants, for low-income families.

The program, which President Joe Biden announced in August, is expected to apply to 43 million Americans — and 20 million could have their debt completely wiped out, the White House estimates.

The debt cancellation, which is also being challenged in court, is expected to cost around $400 billion, the Congressional Budget Office has said, though the administration disputes this assessment.

On Tuesday, administration officials said that once the application is released, eligible borrowers will fill out a “simple” two-part form that will be available in both English and Spanish, via computers and mobile devices, and accessible to borrowers with disabilities. The White House also released a sample version of that form.

Borrowers will not need to log in with a preexisting aid ID or upload any documents to the link, the officials said. They will have to provide their first and last names, Social Security number, date of birth, phone number, email address and income based on their 2020 or 2021 taxes.

At the bottom of the form, borrowers must review and sign a certification statement under penalty of perjury, which the administration officials stressed was one part of their defense against fraud.

“This is a multi-step process for preventing fraud,” one administration official said, adding that “all borrowers who apply will have to attest under penalty of perjury, which is enforceable with hefty fines and jail time, that they meet the income cutoff.”

The officials said there were “strict fraud prevention measures in place” for the loan forgiveness but declined to detail all of them.

A borrower will not have to mark whether or not they received a Pell grant, the officials said. The DOE already has borrowers’ loan information.

According to the White House, applicants who have a federal loan and are likely to “exceed” the income cutoff will be required to submit additional information to confirm that they meet the income requirement. The government will reach out to borrowers directly in the cases where they need more information.

The officials told reporters that steps have been taken to ensure the government can meet the volume of expected demand for the loan forgiveness.

“We’ve been working very hard with our existing contractors to make sure that they have the capacity that’s necessary to serve the public,” one official said. “We’ve also brought in additional support for web traffic and web volume. So we are aware of how big this project is that we’re working on and how important it is for 40 million borrowers and their families and communities and how much excitement there’s going to be.”

Asked about the recent decision to scale back some parts of the loan cancellation program — specifically regarding Perkins loans and Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL), which are handled by private banks — an administration official on the call did not dispute that the change was made to help protect the overall policy from pending lawsuits.

“Our guiding principle here is that we are trying to reach as many borrowers as possible and to do that as quickly and easily as possible,” the official said.

The official said the government was assessing other options for borrowers of Perkins loans and FFELs.

The loan forgiveness application will be available through December 2023.

ABC News’ Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.