Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

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

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. 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] 

CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  ALITO, 
JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH,  and  JUSTICE JACKSON  join,  concur-
ring in part and dissenting in part. 

I  agree  with  the  Court’s  view  in  its  thoughtful  opinion 
that many of the leading cases invoking the dormant Com-
merce  Clause  are  properly  read  as  invalidating  statutes
that promoted economic protectionism.  See ante, at 8–11. 
I also agree with the Court’s conclusion that our precedent
does not support a per se rule against state laws with “ex-
traterritorial”  effects.    See  ante,  at  11–14.  But  I  cannot 
agree with the approach adopted by some of my colleagues 
to  analyzing  petitioners’  claim  based  on  Pike  v.  Bruce 
Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 142 (1970).  See ante, at 15–27 
(opinion of GORSUCH, J.); ante, at 3 (SOTOMAYOR, J. concur-
ring in part); ante, at 1–2 (BARRETT, J., concurring in part). 
Pike  provides  that  nondiscriminatory  state  regulations
are valid under the Commerce Clause “unless the burden 
imposed on [interstate] commerce is clearly excessive in re-
lation to the putative local benefits.”  397 U. S., at 142.  A 
majority  of  the  Court  thinks  that  petitioners’  complaint
does not make for “an auspicious start” on that claim.  Ante, 
at  18.  In  my  view,  that  is  through  no  fault  of  their  own.