Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 52.0

2 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

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

under Pike.  I respectfully disagree with that conclusion for 
the  reasons  well  stated  in  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE’s  separate 
opinion.1 

I  add  this  opinion  to  point  out  that  state  economic 
regulations  like  California’s  Proposition  12  may  raise
questions  not  only  under  the  Commerce  Clause,  but  also
under  the  Import-Export  Clause,  the  Privileges  and
Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. 

I 

In the 1780s, the Framers in Philadelphia and the people 
of the United States discarded the Articles of Confederation 
and adopted a new Constitution.  They did so in order to, 
among other things, create a national economic market and 
overcome  state  restrictions  on  free  trade—and  thereby
promote the general welfare.  By the summer of 1787, when
the delegates met in Philadelphia, state interference with
interstate  commerce  was  cutting  off  the  lifeblood  of  the 
Nation.  See Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. 
Thomas, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 7).  For the 
delegates, therefore, “removing state trade barriers was a 
principal reason for the adoption of the Constitution.”  Ibid. 
In the state ratifying conventions, moreover, “fostering free
trade among the States was prominently cited as a reason
for ratification.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 8). 

The Constitution crafted by the Framers contains several 
provisions  protecting  free  trade  among  the  States.  The 
Constitution’s protection of free trade among the States has 
resulted in an extraordinary 234-year record of progress:  It 
has facilitated robust economic activity within the United 
States and has helped generate remarkable (albeit at times
uneven)  economic  prosperity  and  growth  in  America 
relative to the other nations of the world.  

This  case  involves  the  American  pork  industry,  which 

—————— 

1 The Court also unanimously rejects plaintiffs’ separate claim under 

Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U. S. 324 (1989).