Dormant Commerce Clause - Case Take Aways

Question 1

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey

Answer 1

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey - Prohibition of out-of-state solid or liquid waste importation

Facially Discriminatory & Discriminatory Impact: Per Se Invalid Economic Protectionism

• The New Jersey law falls squarely in the category of laws that sought to achieve a legitimate goal by the illegitimate means of isolating the State from the national economy
• New Jersey has a legitimate reason to reduce disposal costs for residents and permissibly may impose incidental burdens, but cannot accomplish their goals through “protectionist” means
• Goes against free market principles (Private land-fill owners challenged in this case)

Question 2

Hunt, Governor of the State of North Carolina v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

Answer 2

Hunt, Governor of the State of North Carolina v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission

North Carolina attempts to level the playing field for their apple growers excluding the Washington State superior grading system requiring all closed apple containers to bear “no grade other than an applicable U.S. grade”

Facially Neutral, But Discriminatory Effect: The statute raises the cost of selling apples in North Carolina, except for North Carolina apple growers. (A law is likely to be found discriminatory if it imposes costs on out-of-staters that in-staters will not have to bear)

• Fails Strict Scrutiny: Clearly excessive with available alternatives

Question 3

West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy

Answer 3

West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy - Proceeds of non-discriminatory milk tax subsidize in-state milk

Facially Neutral, But Discriminatory Purpose & Impact

• The purpose and the effect of the program was to enable higher cost Massachusetts dairy farmers to compete with lower costs farmers from other states.
• Tax and subsidies are, independently, constitutional aspects of state power but he combination of the two here assists local farmers at the expense of interstate competitors, Violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause
• Furthermore, impairs the political process by mollifying in-state interests, i.e., the Massachusetts milk producers, who would otherwise lobby against the tax

Question 4

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.

Answer 4

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. - Prohibition of all plastic, non-returnable milk containers

Facially Neutral and No Discriminatory Impact

The statue placed a relatively minor burden on interstate commerce.

• Milk products could freely cross the Minnesota border and because most dairies have multiple ways to package their products, it was not inconvenient to conform to different packaging requirements in different states.

  
  • Even if pulpwood industries in the state are slightly benefited, out of state pulpwood producers will presumably absorb some of the business generated by the statute.
• If interstate commerce was found to be heavily burdened, the burden was not “clearly excessive” in light of the substantial state interest in promoting conservation of energy and there is no approach with a lesser impact on interstate activities available.

Question 5

Maine v. Taylor and United States

Answer 5

Maine v. Taylor and United States - Prohibited the importation of live baitfish

Facially Discriminatory Law Passes Muster Under Strict Scrutiny:

The environment is a legitimate concern for Maine because importing minnows could ruin Maine’s fragile fisheries.

No feasible alternatives existed –The burdens are incidental to accomplishing the state interest

Question 6

Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake

Answer 6

Reeves, Inc. v. William Stake - South Dakota cement plant favors in-staters during cement shortage

States that are “market participants” in the buying and selling of goods, as opposed to “market regulator” are not bound by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and can favor their in-state businesses.

Sough What You Reap Rationale: Allow in-state citizens to have preferential access for the taxes they pay, and this preference is constitutional

Question 7

White v. Mass Council of Construction Employers

Answer 7

White v. Mass Council of Construction Employers - Boston Resident Quota for Construction Projects

Satisfies Both Market Participant and Congressional Approval Exceptions

City Funds: City is a market participant in public construction projects and can favor residents

Federal Funds: Federal funds authorized (i.e., through congressional approval) the use of local businesses for the projects