Does a state or local government impermissibly discriminate against interstate commerce when it allows a mineral to be mined for all uses that are common locally but prohibits mining the same mineral in the same way for a use that occurs only in other States?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does a state or local government impermissibly discriminate against interstate commerce when it allows a mineral to be mined for all uses that are common locally but prohibits mining the same mineral in the same way for a use that occurs only in other States? 2. Does a mineral estate in land that is subject to local permitting requirements qualify as “property” protected by the Takings Clause—as the Federal Circuit and the courts of three States have held—or do permitting requirements eliminate the existence of a federally protected property interest unless and until the permits are granted, as the Supreme Court of Minnesota held here?