Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 45

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

5 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

that  case,  we  considered  an  Illinois  law  requiring  that
trucks and trailers use a particular kind of mudguard.  The 
“cost of installing” the mudguards was “$30 or more per ve-
hicle,”  amounting  to  “$4,500  to  $45,840”  for  the  trucking 
companies at issue.  Id., at 525.  But beyond documenting
those direct costs of complying with the Illinois law, we also 
noted other derivative harms flowing from the regulation.
The mudguard rule threatened “significant delay in an op-
eration  where  prompt  movement  may  be  of  the  essence.” 
Id., at 527.  Also, changing mudguard types when crossing
into Illinois from a State with a different standard  would 
require “two to four hours of labor” and could prove “exceed-
ingly  dangerous.”  Ibid.    We  concluded  that  “[c]ost  taken
into consideration” together with those “other factors” could 
constitute  a  burden  on  interstate  commerce.  Id.,  at  526 
(emphasis added).  Subsequent cases followed Bibb’s logic 
by analyzing economic impact to the interstate market sep-
arately from immediate costs of compliance.  See Kassel v. 
Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del., 450 U. S. 662, 674 
(1981) (plurality opinion) (separating “increas[ed] . . . costs” 
from the fact that  the  challenged “law may aggravate . . . 
the problem of highway accidents” in describing the burden
on  interstate  commerce);  Raymond  Motor  Transp.,  Inc.  v. 
Rice, 434 U. S. 429, 445, and n. 21 (1978) (analyzing an in-
crease  in  “cost”  independently  of  other  consequential  ef-
fects, such as “slow[ing] the movement of goods”). 

Pike itself did not conflate harms to the interstate market 
with compliance costs.  In Pike, we analyzed an Arizona law 
requiring  that  cantaloupes  grown  in  the  State  be  packed
prior to shipment across state lines.  397 U. S., at 138.  We 
noted repeatedly that the regulation would require the ap-
pellee to construct an unneeded packing facility in Arizona 
at a cost of $200,000.  Id., at 140, 144, 145.  But we consid-
ered that cost together with the “nature” of a regulation “re-
quiring  business  operations  to  be  performed  in  the  home