context: A regulation serving a protectionist purpose is obviously invalid since a discriminatory purpose is a fortiori illegitimate.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 504 U.S. 353, 359
citation_a.parenthetical: invalidating legislation with legitimate goals since even valid purposes may not be accomplished "by the illegitimate means of isolating [the county] from the national economy"
citation_a.sentence: Id. 437 US. at 626, 98 S.Ct. at 2536; see also Fort Gratiot Landfill v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 504 U.S. 353, 359, 112 S.Ct. 2019, 2024, 119 L.Ed.2d 139 (1992) (invalidating legislation with legitimate goals since even valid purposes may not be accomplished “by the illegitimate means of isolating [the county] from the national economy”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 98 S.Ct. 2535, 2535
citation_b.parenthetical: characterizing a statute with a protectionist purpose as virtually per se invalid
citation_b.sentence: See Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. at 624, 98 S.Ct. at 2535 (characterizing a statute with a protectionist purpose as virtually per se invalid). More benign purposes, however, do not immunize the statute from the challenge since “the evil of protectionism can reside in legislative means as well as legislative ends.”