Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

“may be regulated by the States” even “in the absence of all 
congressional legislation.”  Id., at 320. 

Eventually, the Court cashed out these warnings, holding
that  state  laws  offend  the  Commerce  Clause  when  they
seek to “build up . . . domestic commerce” through “burdens 
upon the industry and business of other States,” regardless
of  whether  Congress  has  spoken.    Guy  v.  Baltimore,  100 
U. S. 434, 443 (1880).  At the same time, though, the Court 
reiterated  that,  absent  discrimination,  “a  State  may  ex-
clude from its territory, or prohibit the sale therein of any 
articles which, in its judgment, fairly exercised, are preju-
dicial to” the interests of its citizens.  Ibid. 

Today, this antidiscrimination principle lies at the “very 
core”  of  our  dormant  Commerce  Clause  jurisprudence. 
Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 
U. S. 564, 581 (1997).  In its “modern” cases, this Court has 
said that the Commerce Clause prohibits the enforcement
of state laws “driven by . . . ‘economic protectionism—that 
is,  regulatory  measures  designed  to  benefit  in-state  eco-
nomic  interests  by  burdening  out-of-state  competitors.’ ”  
Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U. S. 328, 337– 
338 (2008) (quoting New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 
U. S.  269,  273–274  (1988));  see  also  Tennessee  Wine  and 
Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) 
(slip  op.,  at  9)  (observing  that  this  Court’s  cases  operate
principally  to  “safeguard  against  state  protectionism”); 
Northwest  Airlines,  Inc.  v.  County  of  Kent,  510  U. S.  355, 
373,  n. 18  (1994)  (describing  “a  violation  of  the  dormant 
Commerce  Clause”  as  “discrimination  against  interstate
commerce”). 

Admittedly, some “Members of the Court have authored 
vigorous and thoughtful critiques of this interpretation” of
the  Commerce  Clause.  Tennessee  Wine,  588  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(slip  op.,  at  7)  (citing  cases).    They  have  not  necessarily 
quarreled with the antidiscrimination principle.  But they
have suggested that it may be more appropriately housed