397 U.S., at 142, 90 S.Ct., at 847
The appellee Bruce Church, Inc. is a company engaged in extensive commercial farming operations in Arizona and California.1 The appellant is the official charged with enforcing the Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act.2 A provision of the Act requires that all cantaloupes grown in Arizona and offered for sale must be packed in regular compact arrangement in closed standard containers approved by the supervisor.3
The company undertook to develop approximately 6,400 acres of uncultivated land in Parker, Arizona, pursuant to a 1964 lease, spending more than $3,000,000 in clearing, leveling, irrigating, and otherwise developing this land.4 The company began growing cantaloupes on part of the land in 1966.5 Because the company had no packing facilities at Parker, it transported its 1966 and 1967 Parker cantaloupe harvests in bulk loads to Blythe, California, 31 miles away, for sorting, packing, and shipping.6
In 1968 the appellant issued an order prohibiting the company from shipping its cantaloupes out of Arizona unless packed in approved containers.7 No such facilities were available to the company at Parker or nearby in Arizona, and the company faced imminent loss of its anticipated 1968 cantaloupe crop in the gross amount of $700,000.8 An agreed statement of facts stipulated that the practical effect of the order would be to compel the company to build packing facilities in or near Parker that would cost approximately $200,000.9
The company brought this action in federal court to enjoin the order.10 A three-judge court was convened, granted temporary relief, and after discovery issued a permanent injunction.11 This appeal followed.12
Whether the appellant's order affects interstate commerce?13
Statutes expressly requiring that processing be done in the home State before shipment to a sister State affect interstate commerce.14 Such statutes are subject to constitutional challenge under the Commerce Clause.15 The order here requires an operation now carried on outside the State to be performed instead within the State.16
Yes. The established facts show that the appellee company grows cantaloupes on its Parker, Arizona ranch.17 The company has for two years transported the perishable harvest in bulk loads thirty-one miles to Blythe, California for sorting inspection packing and shipping.18 The appellant's order prohibits the company from shipping its cantaloupes out of Arizona unless packed in approved containers.19 Because no packing facilities exist at Parker or nearby in Arizona the order forces the company to perform the packing operation inside Arizona rather than continuing the established practice of performing it in California.20
This situation differs from taxes on cotton that had come to rest in Mississippi with no ascertainable out-of-state destination at the time of taxation.21 The cantaloupes here had an immediate ascertainable destination in California upon harvest.22 The order directly regulates the interstate movement by compelling a change in the location of processing.23
The appellant's order affects interstate commerce.24
Whether the order unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce by requiring the appellee to construct and operate packing facilities in Arizona?25
Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.26 State statutes requiring business operations to be performed in the home State that could more efficiently be performed elsewhere are viewed with particular suspicion.27 They are declared virtually per se illegal even when the state pursues a clearly legitimate local interest.28
Yes. The agreed statement of facts stipulates that the practical effect of the order is to compel the company to build packing facilities in or near Parker, Arizona. These facilities would cost approximately two hundred thousand dollars and take many months to construct.29 The state's asserted interest is to promote and preserve the reputation of Arizona growers by ensuring that the high quality Parker cantaloupes are identified as originating in Arizona.30 Yet the company produces exceptionally high quality fruit that it packs in California under the California packer's name without any deceptive packaging or misrepresentation of quality.31
The burden of forcing construction of an unneeded two hundred thousand dollar plant is constitutionally more significant than its dollar amount because it requires an interstate business to allocate resources inefficiently solely to benefit other Arizona producers.32 This burden is clearly excessive when measured against the minimal local interest especially given the imminent loss of the seven hundred thousand dollar crop that prompted the district court to grant relief.33 The order therefore imposes an unconstitutional straitjacket on the appellee company.34
The order unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce.35