Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–468 
_________________ 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS v. KAREN ROSS, IN HER OFFICIAL 
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE CALI-
FORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & 
AGRICULTURE, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[May 11, 2023] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with  whom  JUSTICE KAGAN  joins,

concurring in part. 

I join all but Parts IV–B and IV–D of JUSTICE GORSUCH’s 
opinion.  Given the fractured nature of Part IV, I write sep-
arately to clarify my understanding of why petitioners’ Pike 
claim fails.  In short, I vote to affirm the judgment because 
petitioners fail to allege a substantial burden on interstate 
commerce  as  required  by  Pike,  not  because  of  any  funda-
mental reworking of that doctrine. 

* 

* 

* 
In Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137 (1970), the
Court  distilled  a  general  principle  from  its  prior  cases.
“Where [a] statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a
legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate
commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the 
burden  imposed  on  such  commerce  is  clearly  excessive  in
relation to the putative local benefits.”  Id., at 142.  Further, 
“the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course 
depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on
whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact 
on interstate activities.”  Ibid.