On Monday, the US Supreme Court issued a list of orders that adds three new cases to its list of merits: National Council of Pork Producers v. Ross, Cruz v. Arizona and Andy Warhol Foundation, Inc.v. Goldsmith. The three cases involve an animal welfare regulation, a criminal proceeding and a copyright dispute. The National Council of Pork Producers v. Ross is referring to Proposition 12, a California regulation that requires certain space allocations for hogs. If farms⁠ do not meet space allocations, they may not sell pork in California. This includes farms both in and out of state. After the Ninth Circuit ruled against the advice, he appealed to the Supreme Court. The council asked the court to declare a state law that has “dramatic economic effects largely outside the state and requires widespread changes in an integrated national industry” to be in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause prevents the state from instituting legislation that “discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce.” g) the prevented post-conviction relief is an appropriate and independent state law ground for trial.” In some criminal cases, federal courts can review state court decisions if the ruling is based on federal law. A request for federal review is called a writ of habeas corpus. If the state court’s sentence is based on federal and state law, the Supreme Court cannot review the case if the state law is (1) adequate and (2) independent grounds for the sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court denied Cruz’s petition under 32.1(g) because it found that there had been no “significant change in law” since her conviction or sentence. Cruz argued that this finding violates two previous Supreme Court cases and says the Arizona Supreme Court failed to consider her 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 in favor of Goldsmith, the Warhol Foundation asked the Supreme Court to decide whether a court should disregard the original meaning of new art when it is “recognisably derived” from the original material, as the Warhol ruling ruled. Second Circuit.