Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

2 

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part 

As the Court’s opinion here explains, Pike’s balancing and 
tailoring principles are most frequently deployed to detect 
the  presence  or  absence  of  latent  economic  protectionism. 
See ante, at 15–18.  That is no surprise.  Warding off state
discrimination against interstate commerce is at the heart
of our dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence.  See ante, 
at 7, 9–11, 15–16. 

As  the  Court’s  opinion  also  acknowledges,  however,  the
Court  has  “generally  le[ft]  the  courtroom  door  open”  to
claims premised on “even nondiscriminatory burdens.”  De-
partment  of  Revenue  of  Ky.  v.  Davis,  553  U. S.  328,  353 
(2008);  see  ante,  at  17.    Indeed,  “a  small  number”  of  this 
Court’s cases in the Pike line “have invalidated state laws 
. . . that appear to have been genuinely nondiscriminatory” 
in  nature.  General  Motors  Corp.  v.  Tracy,  519  U. S.  278, 
298, n. 12 (1997); see ante, at 17.  Often, such cases have 
addressed state laws that impose burdens on the arteries of 
commerce, on “trucks, trains, and the like.”  Ibid., n. 2.  Yet, 
there is at least one exception to that tradition.  See Edgar 
v. MITE Corp., 457 U. S. 624, 643–646 (1982) (invalidating
a nondiscriminatory state law that regulated tender offers 
to shareholders).
  Pike claims that do not allege discrimination or a burden
on an artery of commerce are further from Pike’s core.  As 
THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  recognizes,  however,  the  Court  today
does not shut the door on all such Pike claims.  See ante, at 
17–18, and n. 2; post, at 2–3.  Thus, petitioners’ failure to
allege discrimination or an impact on the instrumentalities 
of commerce does not doom their Pike claim. 

Nor does a  majority of  the Court endorse the view that
judges are not up to the task that Pike prescribes.  JUSTICE 
GORSUCH,  for  a  plurality,  concludes  that  petitioners’  Pike 
claim  fails  because  courts  are  incapable  of  balancing  eco-
nomic burdens against noneconomic benefits.  See ante, at 
18–21.  I  do  not  join  that  portion  of  JUSTICE  GORSUCH’s