Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

threaten  a  “massive”  disruption  of  the  pork  industry,  see 
Brief for Petitioners 2, 4, 19—if pig husbandry really does
“ ‘imperatively demand’ ” a single uniform nationwide rule, 
id., at 27—they are free to petition Congress to intervene. 
Under  the  (wakeful)  Commerce  Clause,  that  body  enjoys 
the  power  to  adopt  federal  legislation  that  may  preempt
conflicting  state laws.   That body  is better equipped than
this Court to identify and assess all the pertinent economic
and political interests at play across the country.  And that 
body is certainly better positioned to claim democratic sup-
port for any policy choice it may make.  But so far, Congress
has  declined  the  producers’  sustained  entreaties  for  new 
legislation.    See  Part  I,  supra  (citing  failed  efforts).    And 
with that history in mind, it is hard not to wonder whether 
petitioners have ventured here only because winning a ma-
jority of a handful of judges may seem easier than marshal-
ing a majority of elected representatives across the street. 

C 
Even  as  petitioners  conceive  Pike,  they  face  a  problem.
As they read it, Pike requires a plaintiff to plead facts plau-
sibly  showing  that  a  challenged  law  imposes  “substantial 
burdens” on interstate commerce before a court may assess
the law’s competing benefits or weigh the two sides against
each other.  Brief for Petitioners 44.  And, tellingly, the com-
plaint before us fails to clear even that bar. 

To appreciate petitioners’ problem, compare our case to 
Exxon.  That case involved a Maryland law prohibiting pe-
troleum producers from operating retail gas stations in the 
State.  437 U. S., at 119–121, and n. 1.  Because Maryland
had  no  in-state  petroleum  producers,  Exxon  argued,  the
law’s  “divestiture  requirements”  fell  “solely  on  interstate
companies” and threatened to force some to “withdraw en-
tirely  from  the  Maryland  market”  or  incur  new  costs  to 
serve that market.  Id., at 125–127.  All this, the company
said,  amounted  to  a  violation  of  the  dormant  Commerce