Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

2 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

BARRETT, J., concurring
BARRETT, J., concurring in part 

of our Pike precedents requires us to attempt such a feat. 

That said, I disagree with my colleagues who would hold
that petitioners have failed to allege a substantial burden
on  interstate  commerce.  Ante,  at  21–25;  ante,  at  3 
(SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part).  The complaint plau-
sibly alleges that Proposition 12’s costs are pervasive, bur-
densome,  and  will  be  felt  primarily  (but  not  exclusively) 
outside  California.    See  post,  at  6–7  (ROBERTS,  C. J.,  con-
curring in part and dissenting in part).  For this reason, I 
do not join Part IV–C of JUSTICE GORSUCH’s opinion.  If the 
burdens and benefits were capable of judicial balancing, I
would permit petitioners to proceed with their Pike claim.