Dormant Commerce Clause Flashcards
What is the Dormant Commerce Clause
‘Although the commerce Clause is 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.’
3 Functions of DCC
- Protectionism - measures taken by states to benefit instate interests by burdening out-of state competitors (discrimination) (per se rule of invalidity)
- Direct Regulation of out of state conduct (per se rule of invalidity)
- Unduly burden commerce in matters where national uniformity is required
DCC- Protectionism Case-
Wyoming v. Oklahoma
- where state regulations purposefully or faciall discriminate, state law is per se invalid (bucket 1)
DCC- Protectionism Case-
Baldwin- N.Y. Milk Case
- state law violated dormant commerce clause b/c it prohibited importation of less expensive goods in interstate commerce
- state in dealing w/another state cannot place itself in position of economic isolation
- if states impose protectionism it opens up to rivalries and reprisals
- rivalries btw states reduced effectiveness of interstate commerce of the nation
DCC- Protectionism Case-
Madison- Local Milk Case
- local health/safety law discriminate against interstate commerce if reasonable non-discriminating alternatives which address local interest available
a. existence of alternatives renders law unconstitutional
b. even if local interest/benefit is legitimate; if burdens impose limits on interstate commerce; there will be significant level of interest/benefits - case of protectionism disguised as public safety
DCC- Protectionism Case-
Philadelphia v. New Jersey- Trash Case
- protectionist if preference to in-state interest at cost of out-state interest
- need to look at what is the practical effect of law to determine if protectionism
Direct Regulation Beyond Boarders Cases
Brown-Forman-NY Liquor
- state law that regulates w/in state evenhandedly can affect interstate commerce
- state law cannot effect people in other states giving up competitive advantage
- states may regulate w/in borders but it may not project its legislation into other states
- direct regulation beyond state borders (not protectionist b/c stipulated as “evenhanded”)
Incidental Regulation: Undue Burden/National Uniformity
Pike-Cantaloupe Case (Pike test)
- law evenhanded and doesn’t give preference to state; so it is not protectionist & does not regulate directly outside of its borders
- law unduly burdens interstate commerce when national uniformity is required
- it provides undue rigidity for businesses
- where statute is evenhanded, to effectuate legitimate local interest and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to putative local benefits
- when state law has to do with transportation safety; state’s interest is at its apex
Incidental Regulation: Undue Burden/National Uniformity
Cooley-Port of Philadelphia Case
- constitutional for state to regulate areas of interstate commerce that are local in nature
- state does not have to accept single uniform system or plan of regulation at local level
- congress power to regulate commerce did not deprive state power to regulate local level
- court will weigh local reason w/national good for uniformity of regulation
Incidental Regulation: Undue Burden/National Uniformity
S.Pac-AZ train Case
- ultimate factor to determine is nature/extent burden on interstate commerce
- statute “unduly burdens” interstate commerce when national uniformity is beneficial
- hits all three “calling cards” for the 3rd Category
- if there is burden on interstate commerce and state law does not offer significant benefit of national uniformity, then state law violates Dormant Commerce Clause
Incidental Regulation: Undue Burden/National Uniformity
MN v. Clover-Milk Carton
a. state law was even-handed on its face by banning non-returnable plastic milk cartons
b. state law permitted milk cartons make of pulpwood; made w/in state
c. issues was whether law had incidental burden imposed on interstate commerce and if that burden was “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits”
d. law did not target out of state companies and favor in-state companies
e. commerce clause protects interstate markets, not interstate companies from prohibitive or burdensome regulations
f. nondiscriminatory regulation serving substantial state purposes is not invalid simply because it causes some business shift from out to in state
Incidental Regulation: Undue Burden/National Uniformity
Bibb v. Navaho -Mud flaps Case
a. IL law required contour rear fender mudflaps on all trucks/trailers on state highways’
b. non-contour mudflaps were legal in 45 states
c. the heavy burden on interstate commerce was too excessive compared to local benefit
d. local safety regulations of law were minor compared to the effect on interstate commerce
Incidental Regulation: Undue Burden/National Uniformity
Maine v. Taylor
Baitfish case
Said not acting for economic protectionism, but for enviornmental protectionism and safety of baitfish
Said there is no reasonable, non-discriminatory way of doing this.
SCOTUS said this was acceptable.
Other statutes that may be upheld-
quarantine laws
Incidental Regulation: Undue Burden/National Uniformity
Pike Test
Where statute is evenhanded, to effectuate legitimate local 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.
Incidental Regulation: Undue Burden/National Uniformity
3 Calling Cards
- Regulation differs from uniform national norm
- Has effect of motivating people to alter their natural route to avoid entering state
- Has incidental effect of regulating out of state conduct
