Task: Text Completion
Input (English): commerce are only incidental,” and where the burden imposed on interstate commerce is not “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970). “[T]he practical effect of the statute must be evaluated not only by considering the consequences of the statute itself, but also by considering how the challenged statute may interact with the legitimate regulatory regimes of other States and what effect would arise if not one, but many or every, State adopted similar legislation.” Healy, 491 U.S. at 336, 109 S.Ct. 2491. Finally, there exist unique aspects of commerce that demand national treatment. See, e.g., Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557, 7 S.Ct. 4, 30 L.Ed. 244 (1886) (<HOLDING>). SB 6251 likely violates the dormant commerce 
 Holding statements: (A) holding railroad regulation requiring random drug testing without particularized suspicion to be reasonable in light of connection to public safety (B) holding that a railroad operated and owned by the federal government was immune from antitrust liability (C) holding railroad rate exempt from state regulation (D) recognizing a selfevaluative privilege to railroad companys investigation of an accident in light of the publics stake in the improvement of railroad safety (E) holding negligence per se not applicable to violation of railroad commission regulation
Output (English): (C)