Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

IV 
Failing in their first theory, petitioners retreat to a sec-
ond  they  associate  with  Pike  v.  Bruce  Church,  Inc.,  397 
U. S. 137 (1970).  Under Pike, they say, a court must at least 
assess “ ‘the burden imposed on interstate commerce’ ” by a 
state law and prevent its enforcement if the law’s burdens
are “ ‘clearly excessive in relation to the putative local ben-
efits.’ ”  Brief for Petitioners 44.  Petitioners then rattle off 
a litany of reasons why they believe the benefits Proposition 
12 secures for Californians do not outweigh the costs it im-
poses on out-of-state economic interests.  We see problems
with this theory too. 

A 
In  the  first  place,  petitioners  overstate  the  extent  to
which Pike and its progeny depart from the antidiscrimina-
tion  rule  that  lies  at  the  core  of  our  dormant  Commerce 
Clause  jurisprudence.  As  this  Court  has  previously  ex-
plained, “no clear line” separates the Pike line of cases from 
our  core  antidiscrimination  precedents.  General  Motors 
Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U. S. 278, 298, n. 12 (1997).  While many 
of our dormant Commerce Clause cases have asked whether 
a law exhibits “ ‘facial discrimination,’ ” “several cases that 
have purported to apply [Pike,] including Pike itself,” have 
“turned in whole or in part on the discriminatory character 
of the challenged state regulations.”  Ibid.  In other words, 
if some of our cases focus on whether a state law discrimi-
nates on its face, the Pike line serves as an important re-
minder that a law’s practical effects may also disclose the
presence of a discriminatory purpose. 

Pike itself illustrates the point.  That case concerned an 

—————— 
of-state transactions by those with no connection to the State.  Petition-
ers  do  not  allege  those  conditions  exist  here.   To  the  contrary,  they
acknowledge that Proposition 12 regulates only products that companies
choose  to  sell  “within”  California.  Cal.  Health  &  Safety  Code  Ann. 
§25990(b).