context: A regulation serving a protectionist purpose is obviously invalid since a discriminatory purpose is a fortiori illegitimate.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 437 U.S. 624, 624
citation_a.parenthetical: characterizing a statute with a protectionist purpose as virtually per se invalid
citation_a.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.”
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 112 S.Ct. 2019, 2024
citation_b.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_b.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”).