QUESTION: I'm a bit confused about applying the Pike test. My understanding was that the Pike test was only to be applied to laws that were not discriminatory, but had discriminatory effects.
ANSWER: Correct and incorrect, respectively. If the law does not discriminate against interstate commerce (on its face, in purpose, or in practical effect), then the Pike balancing test applies. But if we come to the legal conclusion that the law "discriminates against interstate commerce in practical effect," such as in Hunt, then it is a discriminatory law, and the much more stringent form of scrutiny applies. Pike only applies with the law is non-discriminatory.
QUESTION: For laws that were facially discriminatory or had a protectionist purpose, the state had to prove that it had a compelling public interest to justify the law. Is this accurate?
ANSWER: No. The exacting scrutiny is with respect to the means, not the end. (See the preceding post on tiers of scrutiny.) The end merely must be legitimate--i.e., not protectionism. The means must be the only ones available--that is, there can be no nondiscriminatory alternative.