Final answer:
State law that burdens interstate commerce can still be valid if it addresses traditional state functions and is not preempted by federal law, with the benefits outweighing the burdens.
Step-by-step explanation:
Under the dormant commerce clause, state law can validly burden interstate commerce if it meets certain criteria. A state law that is an undue burden on interstate commerce will still be valid if it pertains to an area of traditional government functions and is not superseded by a federal law on the matter. For the Supreme Court to uphold such state laws, they must serve a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives.
Moreover, the benefits of the state regulation must outweigh the burden on interstate commerce. Cases such as United States v. Lopez and Gibbons v. Ogden showcase how the Court has navigated the limits of the commerce clause over time, balancing state sovereignty against the national interest in regulating economic transactions across state lines.