Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 47

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

7 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

will “increase production costs per pig by over $13 dollars 
per head, a 9.2% cost increase at the farm level.”  Ibid. 

Separate  and  apart  from  those  costs,  petitioners  assert
harms  to  the  interstate  market  itself.    The  complaint  al-
leges that the interstate pork market is so interconnected
that producers will be “forced to comply” with Proposition 
12, “even though some or even most of the cuts from a hog
are sold in other States.”  Id., at 213a; id., at 239a.  Propo-
sition 12 may not expressly regulate farmers operating out 
of State.  But due to the nature of the national pork market, 
California has enacted rules that carry implications for pro-
ducers as far flung as Indiana and North Carolina, whether 
or  not  they  sell  in  California.    The  panel  below  acknowl-
edged petitioners’ allegation that, “[a]s a practical matter,
given the interconnected nature of the nationwide pork in-
dustry, all or most hog farmers will be forced to comply with
California requirements.”  6 F. 4th, at 1028. 

We  have  found  such  sweeping  extraterritorial  effects, 
even if not considered as a per se invalidation, to be perti-
nent in applying Pike.  In Edgar, we assessed the constitu-
tionality of an Illinois corporate takeover statute that au-
thorized  the  secretary  of  state  to  scrutinize  tender  offers,
even  for  transactions  occurring  wholly  beyond  the  State’s
borders.  As  the  majority  explains,  only  a  plurality  of  the 
Court  in  Edgar  concluded  that  the  Illinois  statute  consti-
tuted a per se violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. 
See  ante,  at  14,  n. 1.    But  a  majority  in  Edgar  analyzed
those  same  extraterritorial  effects  under  our  approach  in 
Pike, concluding that the “nationwide reach” of Illinois’s law 
constituted  an  “obvious  burden  . . .  on  interstate  com-
merce.”  457 U. S., at 643.  The Ninth Circuit did not con-
sider whether, by effectively requiring compliance by farm-
ers  who  do  not  even  wish  to  ship  their  product  into
California, Proposition 12 has a “nationwide reach” similar 
to the regulation at issue in Edgar. 

The  complaint  further  alleges  other  harms  that  cannot