Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

12 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

Opinion of the Court 

firms] from undertaking competitive pricing” or “deprive[d] 
businesses and consumers in other States of ‘whatever com-
petitive advantages they may possess.’ ”  Healy, 491 U. S., 
at 338–339 (quoting Brown-Forman, 476 U. S., at 580).

In  recognizing  this  much,  we  say  nothing  new.  This 
Court has already described “[t]he rule that was applied in 
Baldwin  and  Healy”  as  addressing  “price  control  or  price 
affirmation  statutes”  that  tied  “the  price  of  . . .  in-state 
products to out-of-state prices.”  Pharmaceutical Research 
and  Mfrs.  of  America  v.  Walsh,  538  U. S.  644,  669  (2003) 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    Many  lower  courts
have read these decisions in exactly the same way.  See, e.g., 
6 F. 4th, at 1028–1029; Association for Accessible Medicines 
v. Frosh, 887 F. 3d 664, 669 (CA4 2018); Energy and Envi-
ronment  Legal  Inst.  v.  Epel,  793  F. 3d  1169,  1174  (CA10 
2015); American Beverage Assn. v. Snyder, 735 F. 3d 362, 
373 (CA6 2013).

Consider, too, the strange places petitioners’ alternative
interpretation  could  lead.    In  our  interconnected  national 
marketplace, many (maybe most) state laws have the “prac-
tical  effect  of  controlling”  extraterritorial  behavior.    State 
income tax laws lead some individuals and companies to re-
locate  to  other  jurisdictions.    See,  e.g.,  Banner  v.  United 
States, 428 F. 3d 303, 310 (CADC 2005) (per curiam).  En-
vironmental  laws  often  prove  decisive  when  businesses 
choose  where  to  manufacture  their  goods.  See  American 
Beverage Assn., 735 F. 3d, at 379 (Sutton, J., concurring).
Add  to  the  extraterritorial-effects  list  all  manner  of  “libel 
laws,  securities  requirements,  charitable  registration  re-
quirements, franchise laws, tort laws,” and plenty else be-
sides.  J.  Goldsmith  &  A.  Sykes,  The  Internet  and  the 
Dormant Commerce Clause, 110 Yale L. J. 785, 804 (2001). 
Nor, as we have seen, is this a recent development.  Since 
the  founding,  States  have  enacted  an  “immense  mass”  of 
“[i]nspection  laws,  quarantine  laws,  [and]  health  laws  of 
every description” that have a “considerable” influence on