Opinion of Alito, J.
commerce or when it imposes “undue burdens” on interstate commerce. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 7). Discriminatory state laws are subject to “ ‘a virtually per se rule of invalidity.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Granholm, 544 U. S., at 476). “[O]nce a state law is shown to discriminate against interstate commerce ‘either on its face or in practical effect,’ ” the law’s proponent must “demonstrate both that the statute ‘serves a legitimate local purpose,’ and that this purpose could not be served as well by available nondiscriminatory means.” Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131, 138 (1986). Justification of a discriminatory law faces a “high” bar to overcome the presumption of invalidity. New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U. S. 269, 278 (1988). Laws that “ ‘even-handedly’ ” regulate to advance “ ‘a legitimate local public interest’ ” are subject to a looser standard. Wayfair, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). These laws will be upheld “ ‘unless the burden imposed on [interstate] commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’ ” Ibid. In these circumstances, “ ‘the question becomes one of degree,’ ” and “ ‘the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will … depend on the nature of the local interest involved.’ ” Raymond Motor Transp., 434 U. S., at 441. See also Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 142 (1970).
There is reason to believe that Pennsylvania’s registration-based jurisdiction law discriminates against out-of-state companies.[1] But at the very least, the law imposes a “significant burden” on interstate commerce by
- ↑ See, e.g., J. Preis, The Dormant Commerce Clause as a Limit on Personal Jurisdiction, 102 Iowa L. Rev. 138–140 (2016). A state law discriminates against interstate commerce if its “ ‘practical effect’ ” is to disadvantage out-of-state companies to the benefit of in-state competitors. Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131, 138 (1986); see United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U. S. 330, 338 (2007). Pennsylvania’s law seems to discriminate against out-of-state companies by forcing them to increase their exposure to suits on all claims in order to access Pennsylvania’s market while Pennsylvania
