Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

meet its standards; or they may withdraw from that State’s
market.  In Exxon, the law posed a choice only for out-of-
state firms.  Here, the law presents a choice primarily—but
not exclusively—for out-of-state businesses; California does
have some pork producers affected by Proposition 12.  See 
App. to Pet. for Cert. 205a.  In Exxon, as far as anyone could
tell, the law threatened only to shift market share from one
set of out-of-state firms to another.  Here, the pleadings al-
low for the same possibility—that California market share
previously enjoyed by one group of profit-seeking, out-of-state
businesses (farmers who stringently confine pigs and pro-
cessors who decline to segregate their products) will be re-
placed  by  another  (those  who  raise  and  trace  Proposition 
12-compliant pork).  In both cases, some may question the 
“wisdom”  of  a  law  that  threatens  to  disrupt  the  existing
practices  of  some  industry  participants  and  may  lead  to
higher consumer prices.  437 U. S., at 128.  But the dormant 
Commerce Clause does not protect a “particular structure
or metho[d] of operation.”  Id., at 127.  That goes for pigs no
less than gas stations.

Think  of  it  another  way.    Petitioners  must  plead  facts
“plausibly”  suggesting  a  substantial  harm  to  interstate 
commerce;  facts  that  render  that  outcome  a  “speculative”
possibility are not enough.  Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 
550  U. S.  544,  555,  557  (2007).    In  an  effort  to  meet  this 
standard,  petitioners  allege  facts  suggesting  that  certain
out-of-state farmers and processing firms will find it diffi-
cult to comply with Proposition 12 and may choose not to do 
so.  See  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  198a,  208a,  313a.    But  the 
complaint also acknowledges that many producers have al-
ready converted to some form of group housing, even if they
have  not  all  yet  met  Proposition  12’s  standards.    Id.,  at 
186a.  From  these  facts,  the  complaint  plausibly  alleges 
that some out-of-state firms may face difficulty complying
(or may choose not to comply) with Proposition 12.  But from 
all anyone can tell, other out-of-state competitors seeking to