Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 17

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

stood, “each of the border States” could “enac[t] statutes es-
sentially identical to Connecticut’s” in retaliation—a result 
often associated with avowedly protectionist economic poli-
cies.  Id., at 339–340. 

B 

Petitioners insist that our reading of these cases misses 
the forest for the trees.  On their account, Baldwin, Brown-
Forman,  and  Healy  didn’t  just  find  an  impermissible  dis-
criminatory purpose in the challenged laws; they also sug-
gested an “almost per se” rule against state laws with “ex-
traterritorial effects.”  Brief for Petitioners 19, 23.  In Healy, 
petitioners stress,  the  Court  included  language  criticizing
New York’s laws for having the “ ‘practical effect’ ” of “con-
trol[ling]  commerce  ‘occurring  wholly  outside  the  bounda-
ries  of  [the]  State.’ ”    Brief  for  Petitioners  21,  25  (quoting 
491 U. S., at 336).  In Brown-Forman, petitioners observe, 
the Court suggested that whether a state law “ ‘is addressed 
only to [in-state] sales is irrelevant if the “practical effect”
of the law is to control’ ” out-of-state prices.  Brief for Peti-
tioners 21 (quoting 476 U. S., at 583).  Petitioners point to
similar  language  in  Baldwin  as  well.  Brief  for  Petition-
ers 37 (quoting 294 U. S., at 523–524).

In our view, however, petitioners read too much into too 
little.  “[T]he  language  of  an  opinion  is  not  always  to  be
parsed as though we were dealing with language of a stat-
ute.”  Reiter v.  Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 341 (1979).
Instead,  we  emphasize,  our  opinions  dispose  of  discrete
cases and controversies and they must be read with a care-
ful eye to context.  See Cohens v.  Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 
399–400  (1821)  (Marshall,  C. J.).   And  when  it  comes  to 
Baldwin, Brown-Forman, and Healy, the language petition-
ers highlight appeared in a particular context and did par-
ticular  work.    Throughout,  the  Court  explained  that  the
challenged statutes had a specific impermissible “extrater-
ritorial  effect”—they  deliberately  “prevent[ed  out-of-state