Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 46

6 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

State.”  Id., at 145.  The Court in Pike found both compli-
ance  costs  and  consequential  market  harms  cognizable  in 
determining  whether  the  law  at  issue  impermissibly  bur-
dened interstate commerce. 

The  derivative  harms  we  have  long  considered  in  this
context are in no sense “noneconomic.”  Ante, at 27 (opinion 
of GORSUCH, J.).  Regulations that “aggravate . . . the prob-
lem  of  highway  accidents,”  Kassel,  450  U. S.,  at  674,  or 
“slow the movement of goods,” Rice, 434 U. S., at 445, im-
pose economic burdens, even if those burdens may be diffi-
cult to quantify and may not arise immediately.  Our cases 
provide  no  license  to  chalk  up  every  economic  harm—no 
matter how derivative—to a mere cost of compliance. 

Nor can the foregoing cases be dismissed because they ei-
ther  involved  the  instrumentalities  of  transportation  or  a
state  law  born  of  discriminatory  purpose.  As  discussed 
above, we have applied Pike to state laws that neither con-
cerned transportation nor discriminated against commerce. 
See  Edgar,  457  U. S.,  at  643–646.  The  Pike  balance  may 
well come out differently when it comes to interstate trans-
portation, an area presenting a strong interest in “national
uniformity.”  Tracy, 519 U. S., at 298, n. 12.  But the error 
below does not concern a particular balancing of interests
under Pike; it concerns how to analyze the burden on inter-
state commerce in the first place. 

B 
As in our prior cases, petitioners here allege both compli-
ance costs and consequential harms to the interstate mar-
ket.  With  respect  to  compliance  costs,  petitioners  allege
that  Proposition  12  demands  significant  capital  expendi-
tures for farmers who wish to sell into California.  “Produc-
ers . . . will need to spend” between $290 and $348 million 
“of additional capital in order to reconstruct their sow hous-
ing and overcome the productivity loss that Proposition 12
imposes.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 214a.  All told, compliance