Most state laws treat in-state and out-of-state businesses the same, but many still burden interstate commerce: truck-length limits, labeling rules, product standards. Discrimination gets a near-fatal test. For even-handed laws, the Court uses a gentler balancing test from a 1970 case about cantaloupes.
Why it works
Why balance at all? An even-handed law does not show the protectionist danger of discrimination: in-state businesses bear the same burden, so they have a reason to fight bad laws in the state legislature. Courts therefore defer, stepping in only when the burden on interstate commerce is clearly out of proportion to the local good. Critics, including Justices Scalia and Gorsuch, have argued that judges cannot weigh such different things (economic burdens against, for example, safety or moral interests) on any common scale.
Key idea
A nondiscriminatory state law is upheld unless the burden on interstate commerce is "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits" (Pike v. Bruce Church, 1970). In Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways (1981) the Court struck down Iowa's ban on 65-foot double-trailer trucks: the safety gain was slight and the burden on interstate trucking was heavy.
Worked example: Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways (1981)
Iowa banned 65-foot double-trailer trucks on its highways, though most nearby states allowed them, and cited highway safety. Interstate truckers had to detour around Iowa, use smaller trucks or split their loads at the border. How did the Court respond?
- The length limit applied to all trucks on Iowa roads, so the Court weighed burden against benefit.
- Local benefit: the evidence showed the longer trucks were about as safe as the shorter ones Iowa allowed, so the safety gain was slight.
- Burden: heavy, because interstate trucking had to go around the state or change equipment.
- The judgment was 6 to 3; the dissenters would have given more weight to the state's safety judgment.
Answer: Iowa's law was struck down. Courts respect safety laws, but a claimed safety benefit that the evidence does not support cannot outweigh a large burden on interstate commerce.
Worked example: Running the Pike test
A state requires trucks on its highways to use a special mudflap that no other state requires and many forbid. The state cites modest safety benefits. Interstate trucks must stop at the border to change mudflaps. Apply Pike.
- Even-handed? Yes: in-state and out-of-state trucks need the same mudflap.
- Local benefit: modest, as the state concedes.
- Burden: severe for interstate trucking, which must stop and re-equip at the border.
- Compare: the burden is clearly excessive relative to the benefit.
Answer: Likely invalid under Pike.
Common mistake
Applying Pike to discriminatory laws. Discriminatory laws face the near-per-se rule from City of Philadelphia; Pike is for even-handed laws. Check the first question first: does the law treat in-state and out-of-state interests differently?
This is an educational course, not legal advice.