Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 51

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 
Opinion of KAVANAUGH, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–468 
_________________ 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS v. KAREN ROSS, IN HER OFFICIAL 
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE CALI-
FORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & 
AGRICULTURE, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[May 11, 2023] 

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in part and dissenting

in part. 

In  today’s  fractured  decision,  six  Justices  of  this  Court
affirmatively  retain  the  longstanding  Pike  balancing  test 
for  analyzing  dormant  Commerce  Clause  challenges  to 
state  economic  regulations.    Ante,  at  1  (SOTOMAYOR,  J., 
joined  by  KAGAN,  J.,  concurring  in  part);  ante,  at  2–3 
(ROBERTS,  C. J.,  joined  by  ALITO,  KAVANAUGH,  and 
JACKSON,  JJ.,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part); 
see  Pike  v.  Bruce  Church,  Inc.,  397  U. S.  137  (1970). 
Although  Parts  IV–B  and  IV–D  of  JUSTICE  GORSUCH’s 
opinion would essentially overrule the Pike balancing test,
those  subsections  are  not  controlling  precedent,  as  I 
understand it. 

But  Part  IV–C  of  JUSTICE  GORSUCH’s  opinion  is 
controlling precedent for purposes of the Court’s judgment
as  to  the  plaintiffs’  Pike  claim.
  There,  a  four-Justice 
plurality of the Court applies Pike and rejects the plaintiffs’
dormant  Commerce  Clause  challenge  under  Pike.  The 
plurality  reasons  that  the  plaintiffs’  complaint  did  not 
sufficiently  allege  that  the  California  law  at  issue  here
imposed  a  substantial  burden  on  interstate  commerce