Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

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

7 

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

J.,  dissenting);  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  419, 
438−439, 449 (1827).

In other words, if one State conditions sale of a good on 
the use of preferred farming, manufacturing, or production
practices  in  another  State  where  the  good  was  grown  or
made, serious questions may arise under the Import-Export
Clause.  I do not take a position here on whether such an 
argument  ultimately  would  prevail.  I  note  only  that  the
question warrants additional consideration in a future case. 
Second,  the  Privileges  and  Immunities  Clause  provides 
that  the  “Citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  in  the  several 
States.”  Art. IV, §2, cl. 1; see South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 
585  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2018)  (GORSUCH,  J.,  concurring) 
(slip  op.,  at  1–2);  see  also  Tyler  Pipe  Industries,  Inc.  v. 
Washington  State  Dept.  of  Revenue,  483  U. S.  232,  265 
(1987) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); 
J. Eule, Laying the Dormant Commerce Clause To Rest, 91 
Yale  L. J.  425,  446−448  (1982).  Under  this  Court’s 
precedents,  one  State’s  efforts  to  effectively  regulate
farming,  manufacturing,  or  production  in  other  States 
could raise significant questions under that Clause.  Again,
I express no view on whether such an argument ultimately 
would prevail.  But the issue warrants further analysis in a 
future case. 

Third,  the  Full  Faith  and  Credit  Clause  requires  each 
State to afford “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts”
of “every other State.”  Art. IV, §1.  That Clause prevents
States  from  “adopting  any  policy  of  hostility to  the  public
Acts” of another State.  Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U. S. 408, 413 
(1955).  A State’s effort to regulate farming, manufacturing, 
and  production  practices  in  another  State  (in  a  manner 
different  from  how  that  other  State’s  laws  regulate  those 
practices)  could  in  some  circumstances  raise  questions
under 
See,  e.g.,  M.  Rosen,  State 
Extraterritorial  Powers  Reconsidered,  85  Notre Dame 

that  Clause.