Page:NPPC v. Ross.pdf/41

Rh

, with whom, , and join, concurring 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 Commerce Clause are properly read as invalidating statutes that promoted economic protectionism. See. I also agree with the Court’s conclusion that our precedent does not support a per se rule against state laws with “extraterritorial” effects. See. 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 (opinion of );  (, concurring in part);  (, 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 relation 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. In my view, that is through no fault of their own.