Page:NPPC v. Ross.pdf/50

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
10
NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL v. ROSS

Opinion of Roberts, C. J.

commerce. See ante, at 2 (opinion of Barrett, J.) (“The complaint plausibly alleges that Proposition 12’s costs are pervasive, burdensome, and will be felt primarily (but not exclusively) outside California.”). *** In my view, petitioners plausibly allege a substantial burden against interstate commerce. I would therefore remand the case for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether it is plausible that the “burden … is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Pike, 397 U. S., at 142.