Opinion of the Court
IV
Failing in their first theory, petitioners retreat to a second they associate with Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137 (1970). Under Pike, they say, a court must at least assess “ ‘the burden imposed on interstate commerce’ ” by a state law and prevent its enforcement if the law’s burdens are “ ‘clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’ ” Brief for Petitioners 44. Petitioners then rattle off a litany of reasons why they believe the benefits Proposition 12 secures for Californians do not outweigh the costs it imposes on out-of-state economic interests. We see problems with this theory too.
A
In the first place, petitioners overstate the extent to which Pike and its progeny depart from the antidiscrimination rule that lies at the core of our dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. As this Court has previously explained, “no clear line” separates the Pike line of cases from our core antidiscrimination precedents. General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U. S. 278, 298, n. 12 (1997). While many of our dormant Commerce Clause cases have asked whether a law exhibits “ ‘facial discrimination,’ ” “several cases that have purported to apply [Pike,] including Pike itself,” have “turned in whole or in part on the discriminatory character of the challenged state regulations.” Ibid. In other words, if some of our cases focus on whether a state law discriminates on its face, the Pike line serves as an important reminder that a law’s practical effects may also disclose the presence of a discriminatory purpose.
Pike itself illustrates the point. That case concerned an
of-state transactions by those with no connection to the State. Petitioners do not allege those conditions exist here. To the contrary, they acknowledge that Proposition 12 regulates only products that companies choose to sell “within” California. Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §25990(b).
