The US Supreme Court Monday issued an order list adding three new cases to its merits docket: National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, Cruz v. Arizona and Andy Warhol Foundation, Inc. v. Goldsmith. The three cases involve an animal welfare regulation, criminal procedure, and a copyright dispute.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross concerns Proposition 12, a California regulation mandating certain space allowances for pigs. If farms⁠ do not satisfy the space allowances, they may not sell pork in California. This includes both in-state and out-of-state farms.

After the Ninth Circuit ruled against the council, it appealed to the Supreme Court. The council asked the court to declare that a state law which has “dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry” is a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause prevents state from instituting legislation that “discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce.”

The court granted review of only one issue in Cruz v. Arizona: “Whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s 1 holding that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g) precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.” In some criminal cases, federal courts may review state court decisions if the judgement turns on federal law. A request for federal review is called a writ of Habeas Corpus. If the state court judgement rests upon both federal and state law, the Supreme Court may not review the case if the state law is (1) adequate and (2) independent grounds for the judgement.

The Arizona Supreme Court denied Cruz’s petition under 32.1(g) because it found that there was not a “significant change in the law” since his judgement or sentencing. Cruz argued that this finding violates two prior Supreme Court cases and says the Arizona Supreme Court did not consider his claim under federal law.

Andy Warhol Foundation, Inc. v. Goldsmith involves a series of paintings by pop artist Andy Warhol based on a 1984 photograph of Prince by Lynn Goldsmith. The foundation argues that Warhol permissibly used Goldsmith’s work to create a new message. After the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Goldsmith, the Warhol Foundation asked the Supreme Court to decide whether a court should disregard the original meaning of new art when it is “recognizably derived” from source material, as the Second Circuit ruled.