Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 14

8 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

Opinion of the Court 

elsewhere in the Constitution.  Perhaps in the Import–Ex-
port Clause, which prohibits States from “lay[ing] any Im-
posts or Duties on Imports or Exports” without permission 
from  Congress.  Art.  I,  §10,  cl. 2;  see  Camps  New-
found/Owatonna, 520 U. S., at 621–637 (THOMAS, J., dis-
senting).  Perhaps in the Privileges and Immunities Clause, 
which  entitles  “[t]he  Citizens  of  each  State”  to  “all  Privi-
leges  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  in  the  several  States.” 
Art. IV,  §2;  see  Tyler  Pipe  Industries,  Inc.  v.  Washington 
State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U. S. 232, 265 (1987) (Scalia, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part).  Or perhaps the
principle inheres in the very structure of the Constitution, 
which “was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the 
several  [S]tates  must  sink  or  swim  together.”  American 
Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 545 
U. S. 429, 433 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Whatever  one  thinks  about  these  critiques,  we  have  no 
need to engage with any of them to resolve this case.  Even 
under our received dormant Commerce Clause case law, pe-
titioners begin in a tough spot.  They do not allege that Cal-
ifornia’s  law  seeks  to  advantage  in-state  firms  or  disad-
vantage out-of-state rivals.  In fact, petitioners disavow any 
discrimination-based claim, conceding that Proposition 12
imposes the same burdens on in-state pork producers that
it imposes on out-of-state ones.  As petitioners put it, “the 
dormant  Commerce  Clause . . .  bar  on  protectionist  state
statutes that discriminate against interstate commerce . . . 
is not in issue here.”  Brief for Petitioners 2, n. 2. 

III 
Having conceded that California’s law does not implicate 
the antidiscrimination principle at the core of this Court’s
dormant  Commerce  Clause  cases,  petitioners  are  left  to
pursue two more ambitious theories.  In the first, petition-
ers invoke what they call “extraterritoriality doctrine.”  Id., 
at  19.  They  contend  that  our  dormant  Commerce  Clause