Page:NPPC v. Ross.pdf/6

Syllabus

do not provide judges “a roving license” to reassess the wisdom of state legislation in light of any conceivable out-of-state interest, economic or otherwise. United Haulers, 550 U. S., at 343. Pp 25–27.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, concluded that the judgment should be affirmed, not because courts are incapable of balancing economic burdens against noneconomic benefits as Pike requires or because of any other fundamental reworking of that doctrine, but because petitioners fail to plausibly allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce as required by Pike. Pp 1–3.

Justice Barrett concluded that the judgment should be affirmed because Pike balancing requires both the benefits and burdens of a State law to be judicially cognizable and comparable, see Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U. S. 328, 354–355, but the benefits and burdens of Proposition 12 are incommensurable; that said, the complaint plausibly alleges a substantial burden on interstate commerce because Proposition 12’s costs are pervasive, burdensome, and will be felt primarily (but not exclusively) outside California. Pp 1–2.

Gorsuch, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, IV–A, and V, in which Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts IV–B and IV–D, in which Thomas and Barrett, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–C, in which Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Kagan, J., joined. Barrett, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.