Dormant Commerce Clause Flashcards
What is the Dormant Commerce Clause?
Art I Sec 8 Cl 3 of the US Constitution empowers Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Although the Commerce Clause is by its text an affirmative grant of power to Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, the Clause has long been recognized as a self-executing limitation on the power of the States to enact laws imposing substantial burdens on such commerce.
What 3 distinct Constitutional Functions does the Dormant Commerce Clause Serve?
- Anti-protectionist function (discriminating against other states)
- Sovereign-capacity function (direct regulation)
- Anti-obstructionist function.
Explain the Anti-protectionist function.
The Clause prohibits economic protectionism – that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit instate economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors. (essentially trying to erect trade borders)
subject to “virtually per se rule of invalidity”
SCOTUS: “when a state statute either directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry.
indicia: showing in-state interest over out-of-state interest in economic terms.
Explain the Sovereign-Capacity Function
The Clause protects “the autonomy of the individual States within their respective spheres” by”precluding the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State’s Borders.”
No state has the authority to tell other polities what laws they must enact or how affairs must be conducted.
subject to “virtualy per se rule of invalidity”
SCOTUS: “when a state statute either directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry.
Explain the Anti-obstructionist Function
The Clause prohibits state regulation that “unduly burdens commerce in matters where national uniformity is essential for the functioning of commerce.” State regulation that impedes national uniformity is often said to constitute “incidental regulation of interstate commerce” b/c it leads regulated actors to alter their nationwide conduct to conform to the law of a particular state.
subject to Pike balancing test.
What is the Pike balancing test and when does it apply?
Cantalope Case.
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.
If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities.
Applies to Anti-obstructionist function of the DCC.
Cooley v Board of Wardens (state may enact regulations addressing “local pecularities”
Court upheld Penn’s 1803 law that required ships using the Philadelphia port to hire a local pilot.
b/c Congress manifested an intention not to regulate this subject but to leave it to the individual states.
Gibbons v Ogden (genesis of DCC doctrine)
Govt of NY granted steamboat company monopoly.
Does Commerce Clause give Congress plenary power to regulate interstate commerce including navigation w/in one state which affects other states?
Yes. Any time a state regulation conflicts with a federal regulation, the state regulation must yield to the federal law.
Dicta: court foreshadowed the possibility of concurrent commerce regulation by both federal and state sovereigns, using taxing power as an example.
Baldwin v G.A.F. (protectionism)
State of NY passed Milk Control Act stating milk cannot be sole to NY farmer at higher price than is sold to VT farmer.
C - One state in its dealings with another may not place itself in a position of economic isolation.
Philadelphia v NJ (per se rule of invalidity)
NJ law prohibited the importation of waste collected outside state limits claiming it was for sanitary reasons.
Court have reflected an alertness to the evils of “economic isolation” and protectionism while at the same time recognizing that incidental burdens on interstate commerce may be unavoidable when a State legislates to safeguard the health and safety of its people.
But where simple economic protectionism is effected by state legislation, a virtually per se rule of invalidity has been erected.
Brown-Forman Distilers v. NY State Liquor Auth (stipulated that it was “even-handed” and “nondiscriminatory”
NY statute was not protectionist b/c conferred no advantages to NY distributors over out-of-state competitors.
Violated CC b/c it “effectively regulated the price at which liquor was sold in other States” by “making it illegal for a distiller to reduce its price in other States during the period that a posted NY price was in effect”
Hunt v WA State Apple (striking down product-labeling law)
Where statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be uphld 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 Z becomes one of degree. depends on nature of local interest involved and on whether it could be promoted as welll with a lesser impact on interstate activities.
MN v. Clover Leaf
found no approach with lesser impact on interstate activities under Pike balancing test. Safety is the apex of local benefits.
S. Pac. v AZ
Striking train-length law where purpose was to limit accidents.
Although safety is apex for purpose, Purpose was not effective.
Under Pike balancing test, state law that incidentally affects interstate commerce was struck down b/c it was excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.
Bibb v Navajo Freight
ILL mud flap law was invalid b/c hit all 3 calling cards:
1. differ from nat’l norm
2. motivates people to alter route
3. incidental effect of regulating out of state conduct.
Truckers burden was clearly excessive to safety benefit people of state would realize.
