Editing Dormant Commerce Clause (section)

===No local processing preference===
The basic idea of the local processing ordinance was to provide favored access to local processors of locally produced raw materials.  Examples of Supreme Court decisions in this vein are set out in its ''Carbone'' decision. They include ''Minnesota v. Barber'', 136 U.S. 313, (1890) (striking down a Minnesota statute that required any meat sold within the State, whether originating within or without the State, to be examined by an inspector within the State);  ''Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel'', 278 U.S. 1 (1928) (striking down a Louisiana statute that forbade shrimp to be exported unless the heads and hulls had first been removed within the State);  ''Johnson v. Haydel'', 278 U.S. 16 (1928) (striking down analogous Louisiana statute for oysters);  ''Toomer v. Witsell'', 334 U.S. 385 (1948) (striking down South Carolina statute that required shrimp fishermen to unload, pack, and stamp their catch before shipping it to another State);  ''[[Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.]]'', supra  (striking down Arizona statute that required all Arizona-grown cantaloupes to be packaged within the State prior to export);  ''[[South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke]]'', 467 U.S. 82 (1984) (striking down an Alaska regulation that required all Alaska timber to be processed within the State prior to export). The Court has defined "protectionist" state legislation as "regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors". ''New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach'', 486 U.S. 269, 273&ndash;274 (1988).