Dormant Commerce Clause

Question 1

3 Ways to Discriminate

Answer 1

1) Facially
2) In purpose
3) In effect

Question 2

Facially discriminatory laws

Answer 2

• Economic protectionism does not justify facially discriminatory laws against out-of-staters
• A facially discriminatory law must be necessary to achieve an important interest
• Necessary means the least restrictive alternative
  (City of Philadelphia v. NJ (1978)

Question 3

DCC Exceptions

Answer 3

• Congressional Approval
• Market Participant: A state can favor its own citizens in receiving government benefits or dealing with government-owned business.

Question 4

Limit on the market participant exception

Answer 4

The State cannot impose conditions on commerce downstream of the market in which it participates

South-Central Timber development (1984)

Question 5

Hunt v. WA State Apple Advertising (1977)

Answer 5

A law with discriminatory effect on out-of-staters must:
-Provide local benifits; and

-State must demonstrate there were inadequate non-discriminatory alternatives.

Question 6

Exxon Corp. v. Governor of MD

Answer 6

A law that excludes some, but not all, out-of-staters does not violate the (dormant) commerce clause.

Question 7

MN v. Clover Leaf Creamery

Answer 7

Laws with discriminatory effect or purpose will be upheld if they impose only an incidental burden on out-of-staters

Question 8

Pike v. Bruce Church

Answer 8

Establishes benefits v. burdens test for laws that discriminate in purpose or effect (but not facially).

Question 9

Dormant Commerce Clause

Answer 9

State and local laws are unconstitutional if they place an undue burden on interstate commerce.