Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

6 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

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

adopted in Philadelphia in 1787.3 

II 
Thus far, legal challenges to California’s Proposition 12
have  focused  on  the  Commerce  Clause  and  this  Court’s 
dormant Commerce Clause precedents. 

Although the Court today rejects the plaintiffs’ dormant 
Commerce  Clause  challenge  as  insufficiently  pled,  state
laws like Proposition 12 implicate not only the Commerce
Clause,  but  also  potentially  several  other  constitutional 
provisions, 
including  the  Import-Export  Clause,  the 
Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and
Credit Clause. 

First,  the  Import-Export  Clause  prohibits  any  State,
absent “the Consent of the Congress,” from imposing “any
Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may 
be  absolutely  necessary  for  executing”  its  “inspection 
Laws.”  Art. I, §10, cl. 2.  This Court has limited that Clause 
to imports from foreign countries.  See Woodruff v. Parham, 
8 Wall. 123, 133–136 (1869).  As Justice Scalia and JUSTICE 
THOMAS have explained, that limitation may be mistaken
as  a  matter  of  constitutional  text  and  history:  Properly 
interpreted,  the  Import-Export  Clause  may  also  prevent
States “from imposing certain especially burdensome” taxes
and  duties  on  imports  from  other  States—not  just  on
imports from foreign countries.  Comptroller of Treasury of 
Md.  v.  Wynne,  575  U. S.  542,  573  (2015)  (Scalia,  J., 
dissenting);  see  also  Camps  Newfound/Owatonna,  Inc.  v. 
Town of Harrison, 520 U. S. 564, 621–637 (1997) (THOMAS, 
—————— 

3 The portions of JUSTICE GORSUCH’s opinion that speak for only three
Justices (Parts IV–B and IV–D) refer to THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion as 
a “dissent.”  Ante, at 18–21, 25–27.  But on the question of whether to 
retain the Pike balancing test in cases like this one, THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s 
opinion reflects the majority view because six Justices agree to retain the 
Pike balancing test:  THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICES ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, 
KAGAN,  KAVANAUGH,  and  JACKSON.    On  that  legal  issue,  JUSTICE 
GORSUCH’s opinion advances a minority view.