Dormant Commerce Clause

Question 1

Dormant Commerce Clause

Answer 1

the principle that st and local laws are uncon’l if they place an undue burden on inter com
i) promotes idea of nat’l market, no independent st markets

Question 2

2) Preemption doctrine:

Answer 2

Court can strike down inter com st statutes even if not in conflict w/ fed statute

Question 3

3) restrictions v subsidies

Answer 3

st can’t make protectionist regulations, but can subsidize domestic industry
a) Justification: regulations are cheap, subsidies involve costs to state (serves as a check)

Question 4

DCC Categories

Answer 4

a) Explicit protectionism

b) Explicit protectionism but not for protectionist reasons–>(environ/health/safety)

c) No explicit discrimination but has discriminatory/disproportional impact

d) No explicit discrimination and not disproportional impact on inter com (burdens inter/intra equally)heavily in favor of statute
e) Inconsistent (nondiscriminatory) regs between states putting uncon’l burden on inter com

Question 5

a) Explicit protectionism

Answer 5

(facial protectionism) for protectionist reasons = per se uncon’l

i) Bacchus: HI allowed local wine producers an exemption for the excise tax to protect domestic producers from compuncon’l; st cannot discriminate against another st in favor of domestic com
(1) Counter: cts have no authority to preempt laws; Congress can strike laws since it can regulate inter com

Question 6

b) Explicit protectionism but not for protectionist reasons (environ/health/safety)

Answer 6

where there are legitimate/strong st. interest, but explicit discrimination against other states, there is presumption against statute, but st can show protectionism is least restrictive (re inter com) mechanism by which to solve issue (inquiry: less restrictive alt?)

i) Philly v NJ: NJ prohibiting outside waste (envi. concerns) from coming into st (to be put in landfills) uncon’l
(1) No distinction between Philly garbage and NJ garbage = discrimination

ii) Hughes v OK: ban on transporting domestic minnows for sale out of state uncon’l

Question 7

c) No explicit discrimination but has discriminatory/disproportional impact

Answer 7

even-handed balancing analysis: burden on inter com and st justification (no presumption against statute, but st has burden to justify reg)

i) Kassel: held invalid IA law prohibiting use of certain large trucks because IA failed to justify the law as making travel safer so as to justify the effects on inter com
(1) Dissent: the safety justification is valid and was not a pretext for discriminating against other states

ii) Hunt: held invalid NC law barring intra sales of apples not marked specific way, which barred WA apples

Question 8

d) No explicit discrimination and not disproportional impact on inter com (burdens inter/intra equally)

Answer 8

heavily in favor of statute
i) Clover Leaf: upheld st. law banning milk containers made of plastic because law wasn’t discriminatory against other states and the envmt purposes outweighed negative inter effects

Question 9

e) Inconsistent (nondiscriminatory) regs between states putting uncon’l burden on inter com

Answer 9

i) Bibb: held invalid IL law requiring certain mudguards because inter com burdens outweighed safety concerns

Question 10

For the test, look out for:

Answer 10

a) discrimination v. other states

b) benefits only in-state