Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

19 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

that would be necessary . . . to satisfy [the] Pike” test as pe-
titioners conceive it.  Davis, 553 U. S., at 353. 

Our case illustrates the problem.  On the “cost” side of the 
ledger,  petitioners  allege  they  will  face  increased  produc-
tion expenses because of Proposition 12.  On the “benefits” 
side,  petitioners  acknowledge  that  Californians  voted  for 
Proposition 12 to vindicate a variety of interests, many non-
economic.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. 192a (alleging in their 
complaint that “Proposition 12’s requirements were driven
by [a] conception of what qualifies as ‛cruel’ animal hous-
ing” and by the State’s concern for the “ ‘health and safety
of California consumers’ ”).  How is a court supposed to com-
pare or weigh economic costs (to some) against noneconomic 
benefits (to others)?  No neutral legal rule guides the way.
The competing goods before us are insusceptible to resolu-
tion by reference to any juridical principle.  Really, the task
is like being asked to  decide “whether a particular line is 
longer  than  a  particular  rock  is  heavy.”    Bendix  Autolite 
Corp.  v.  Midwesco  Enterprises,  Inc.,  486  U. S.  888,  897 
(1988) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).

Faced with this problem, petitioners reply that we should
heavily  discount  the  benefits  of  Proposition  12.    They  say 
that California has little interest in protecting the welfare
of animals raised elsewhere and  the law’s health benefits 
are overblown.  But along the way, petitioners offer notable 
concessions too.  They acknowledge that States may some-
times ban the in-state sale of products they deem unethical 
or  immoral  without  regard  to  where  those  products  are
made (for example, goods manufactured with child labor).
See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  51  (“[A]  state  is  perfectly  entitled  to 
enforce its morals in state”); see also Western Union Tele-
graph Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 653 (1896) (holding that
States  may  enact  laws  to  “promote . . .  public  morals”).
And,  at  least  arguably,  Proposition  12  works  in  just  this 
way—banning from the State all  whole pork products de-
rived from practices its voters consider “cruel.”  Petitioners