This is an extract of our Federal Limits On State Regulation Of Interstate Commerce document, which we sell as part of our Constitutional Law Outlines collection written by the top tier of Oklahoma City University School Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Constitutional Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Federal Limits on State Regulation of Interstate Commerce Focus now on limits on State powers that flow from National Concerns Art. I restraints on State regulation of commerce arise in 2 (or 3) situations: (1)Dormant Commerce Clause: congress is silent; it has taken no action, express or implied, to make fed policy on a given subject matter (2)Congress HAS exercised the commerce power, and the challenge to inconsistent State action rests both on the exercise of the commerce power under Art. I, SS8, cl.3 and the PREEMPTIVE effect of fed legislation under the Supremacy clause (3)Privileges & Immunities Clause: "guarantees citizens of each state ALL privileges & immunities of citizens of the several states. It bars certain state legislation that discriminates against out-of-state economic interests
Section 1. The Dormant Commerce Clause Art. I. SS10 bars States from imposing duties on imports or exports in foreign commerce w/o congress' approval But the text of the constitution nowhere expressly divests the States of power to regulate interstate commerce...It has been INFERRED. Gibbons v. Ogden Marshall: discussed (in dicta) the possibility that NY may not have the authority to regulate interstate ship traffic in the 1 st place, thus sketching his view of the negative implications of the Commerce Clause for State authority over commerce: Gov argues: the full power to regulate a certain subj. implies plenary power and leaves no residuum, that a grant of the whole is incompatible w/ the existence of a right in another to any part of it. Nascent Dormant Commerce Clause: Marshall noted that even if the national commerce power was exclusive, it still coexisted w/ state power to enact legislation that may affect commerce (ie. health, safety and welfare regulation of imported good, under the police power)
Ex: goods imported into a State might be both the subj. of Federal commercial regulation and also of State health regulation if the goods are "a vehicle of disease" Wilson v. Blackbird Marshall's "police"-"commerce" distinction: Delaware law authorized the Black Bird Co. to build a damn across a navigable steam, which flowed into the Delaware River (and other states) Wilson was the owner of a sloop licensed under Fed laws. The Sloop "broke
& injured" the co.'s damn in order to pass through the creek Opinion; the value of the prop on the creek is enhanced by excluding the waters & health of the inhabitants is improved "MEASURES CALCULATED TO PRODUCE TO OBJECTS (HEALTH), AS LONG AS THEY DON'T COME INTO COLLISSION W/ THE POWERS OF THE FED GOV., ARE UNDOUBTEDLY W/IN THOSE RESERVED TO THE STATES. 3 MODERN CATEGORIES OF DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE CHALLENGES The court focuses on the form & purpose of state law (A) State laws that "facially discriminate" against out-of-state commerce are almost always struck down under a virtually per se rule of invalidity (STRICT SCRUTINY) "the very purpose of the commerce clause was to pretect against discriminating State legislation" (B) State laws that are "facially neutral" as between in state & out-of-state interests but have an "impermissibly protectionist purpose or effect" are also typically invalidated on the ground that they in fact favor local econ. Interests at the expense of out-of-state competitors (C) State laws that are facially neutral but that have a "disproportionate adverse effect" on IC may also be struck down, under the Pike v. Bruce Church balancing test: (PURPOSE v. BURDEN) "where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on IC are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits" If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question is one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will depend on the NATURE of the local Interest, and on whether it could be promoted as well w/ a lesser impact on IC" FACIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE COMMERCE Philadelphia v. NJ NJ law prohibited importation of trash that originated or was collected out of the state
Law challenged by NJ landfillers & other states NJ argued health & safety and not economic protectionism Ct. Held: 'incidental burdens on IC may be unavoidable when a State legislates to safeguard its peoples health, but where simple economic protectionism is effected by state laws, a virtually per se rule of invalidity applies (no basis to distinguish between the health hazards created by NJ waste vs. other states waste) YOU CAN'T ISOLATE A STATE FROM NATIONAL COMMERCE A STATE IS W/O POWER TO PREVENT PRIVATELY OWNED ARTICLES OF TRADE FROM BEING SHIPPED & SOLD IN IC ON THE GROUND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SATISFY LOCAL DEMANDS OR CAUSE THEY ARE NEEDED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE The evil of protectionism can lie in the means as well as the ends Theories behind the Invalidating Facial Discrimination (1) Protectionist Purpose is illegitimate. Protectionist purpose is the purpose of improving the competitive position of local economic actors just b/c they are local, vis-a-vis their foreign competitors (2) Social Welfare-national social welfare will be maximized by inhibiting each state's incentives to maximize own welfare. The economic unit is the Nation. Helps foster total prosperity (3) Representation Reinforcement- state regulation is inherently lacking in political safeguards of the national interest; out-of-staters have no rep in the making of laws against them. NOTE: the rule of presumed invalidity doesn't strike down all laws, quarantine laws are usually upheld Ex. Maine v. Taylor: upheld law banning the importation of out-ofstate baitfish cause had legitimate environmental purpose, ( parasites) State Hoarding of Natural Resources Hughes v. Oklahoma Ct. held invalid an OK law forbidding any person to "transport or ship minnows for sale outside the state which were born/raised w/in OK waters OK failed to resort to nondiscriminatory practices, the state placed no limits on the # of minnows that could be taken by licensed dealers nor did it limit in any way how these minnows could be dealt with in-state. When a wild animal becomes an article of commerce, its use cannot be limited to the citizens of one state to the exclusion of citizens of another State. Facially Discriminatory Taxes
Oregon Waste Systems v. Dept. of Enviro Quality A State may generally not impose higher taxes on out-of-state waste than on in-state waste IC may be made to "pay its way" A facially discriminatory tax that imposes on IC the rought equiv of an identifiable and "substantially similar" tax on INTRAstate commerce doesn't offend the DCC. Facially Discriminatory Subsidies West Lynn Creamery v. Healy Milk retailers all taxed but then subsidies given to in-state producers from the taxes paid by all A state may provide subsidies to in-state producer from GENERAL REVENUES w/o being required to give them to out-of-state producers also But can't tax all producers of a product & then rebate part of the procedes to in-state producers, effectively lowering their costs Camps Newfound v. Town of Harrison Denied tax exemption for facilities that weren't run primarily for citizens of Maine. Held unconstitutional cause the statute "functionally serves as an export tariff that targets out-of-state consumers by taxing businesses that principally serve them Differential tax benefits can only equalize!
Home Processing Requirments The court has repeatedly invalidated State requirements that products be inspected, processed, or treated inside the state before they may be shipped out-of-state Dean Milk Co. Madison Law bared sale of pasteurized milk that wasn't processed w/in 5 miles of Madison Can't do this, even in the exercise of unquestioned power to protect health
& safety, IF REASONABLE NONDISCRIMINATORY ALTERNATIVES ADEQUATE TO CONSERVE LEGITIMATE LOCAL INTERESTS ARE AVAILABLE (USDA guidelines were even stricter)
C & A Carbone, Inc v. Clarkstown Flow control ordinance: required all solid waste be transported &
depositive at the local station for processing at a fee of $81. Carbone wanted to ship out-of-state for lower fee
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law Outlines.