Cases w/ Policy & Theory

Question 1

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas

Answer 1

Rule: If a state law discriminates against out-of-state goods or nonresident economic actors, the law can be sustained only to show that it is narrowly tailored to advance a legitimate local purpose.
Policy: Protecting State Rights when advancing a legitimate local purpose.
Theory: The policy aims to strike a balance between federal authority over interstate commerce and the states’ rights to enact laws that serve legitimate local interests.

Question 2

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey:

Answer 2

Rule: State laws that regulate commercial activity may not, on their face or in effect, favor in-state interests over out-of-state interests
Policy: Preventing Economic Protectionism
Theory: By preventing state laws from favoring in-state interests, this policy ensures that goods, services, and economic activities can flow freely across state lines without undue hindrance or discriminatory practices.

Question 3

Hunt v. Wash. Apple Ad. Commn.

Answer 3

Rule: A facially neutral state law is unconstitutional and violates the Commerce Clause if it has a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce.
Policy: Limiting State Interference
Theory: it promotes economic unity and integration across state borders, which is crucial for the well-being of the national economy

Question 4

Dean Milk v. Madison, WI

Answer 4

Rule: Where reasonable and adequate alternatives are available, a local health ordinance that places a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce violates the Commerce Clause.
Policy: Limiting Federal Interference
Theory: It upholds the idea that states and localities should have the authority to enact laws and ordinances to protect public health, but those laws should not unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce.

Question 5

Maine v. Taylor & U.S.

Answer 5

Rule: State statute that affirmatively discriminates against interstate commerce passes vigorous strict scrutiny test where it attempts to prohibit significant damage to State’s environmental well-being.
Policy: Protecting state ecological and environmental integrity
Theory: based on the concept of “precautionary state sovereignty.” States are closer to their own local environmental concerns and may be best suited to assess potential threats to their ecosystems.

Question 6

Loren J. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.

Answer 6

Rule: Where a state statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.
Policy: Limiting Federal Interference
Theory: It serves to limit state interference in matters that are essentially within the purview of the federal government, ensuring that the federal government maintains the authority to regulate interstate commerce.