Dormant Commerce Clause - Privileges and/or Immunities - State Action Flashcards
T/F: When a State makes a law and Congress is silent on the issue, the first step is to determine which Lopez box the State law falls into
False
Lopez only matters if Congress ISN’T silent
When congressional law is constitutional, and it conflicts with State law, then the State law is obliterated by the:
Supremacy Clause
T/F: Under the Commerce Clause, states may pass laws that affect commerce, so long as they are not repugnant to the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce
True
Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Company (1829)
When can a State discriminate against other states for purposes of commerce? What are the limitations?
The State CAN discriminate if they are a “Market Participant”
Restrictions cannot reach beyond parties that the Government is transacting with
South-Central Timber Dev. v. Wunnicke (1984)
Hughs v. Alexandria Scrap
In South-Central Timber Dev. v. Wunnicke (1984), Alaska decided to sell a whole bunch of timber. Pursuant to an Alaskan Law, whoever bought it was required to partially process the timber before shipping it outside of the State to promote and protect Alaska’s timber business.
What did the Court say about this in relation to regulating commerce?
The Court said a state may impose burdens on commercial transactions within the market in which it is a participant, but may not go further and impose conditions that have a substantial regulatory effect outside of that particular market
In United Haulers v. OHSWMA, OHSWMA is the county authority for waste management and they agreed to manage ALL waste within the counties. Private haulers can still pick up waste but then the Authority takes over for processing and disposing.
Counties enacted “Flow Control” requiring all waste produced to be delivered to OHSWMA.
What did the Supreme Court say about “Flow Control” ordinances in relation to their burden on interstate commerce?
A flow-control ordinance that favors the government, but treats in-state and out-of-state private businesses the same, DOES NOT constitute an excessive burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause
If a State is acting as a “Market Regulator” and has a State Monopoly, why are its laws relating to regulating commerce in that category likely Constitutional?
Because there are no dangers of protectionism (not discriminating against other states)
United Haulers v. OHSWMA
If a State is acting as a “Market Regulator” and DOES NOT have a State Monopoly, what are the next things we ask about the law in question?
(1) Is the State law discriminatory on its face?
(2) Does the State law have a discriminatory purpose?
(3) Does the State law have a discriminatory effect?
If a State is acting as a “Market Regulator” and DOES NOT have a State Monopoly, and passes a law that is trying to protect in-state interests at the expense of out-of-state stuff (protectionist)…
The law will be determined to have a discriminatory ____________.
Purpose
Philadelphia v. New Jersey
A state that discriminates against other states’ articles of commerce on the basis of origin is in violation of the dormant commerce clause
When a law is discriminatory on its face it is said to be “Virtually Per Se Unconstitutional”
What exception to “Virtually Per Se Unconstitutional” did we go over in class as the only known example where a facially discriminatory law was allowed because of a compelling state interest?
Maine law forcing people to buy bait fish in Maine - to prevent parasites
When congress is silent, and a state, as a regulator (with no monopoly), makes a law that is discriminatory on its face (not neutral), that law is said to be:
“Virtually Per Se Unconstitutional”
If a State is acting as a “Market Regulator” and DOES NOT have a State Monopoly, and passes a law that has neutral language that can still be interpreted to impact other states:
The law MAY be determined to have a discriminatory ____________.
Effect
Example: “All cheese sold in Wisconsin must have been manufactured in the last 24 hours”
The “Pike Test” applies when a State is acting as a “Market Regulator” and DOES NOT have a State Monopoly, and passes a law that has neutral language that can still be interpreted to impact other states.
How is the “Pike Test” applied?
(1) Weigh the interference with Interstate Commerce vs. the State’s interest in the health and safety of its citizens
(2) Defer to state (uphold state law) unless the burden to interstate commerce outweighs the benefit to health and safety
Although it might carry less weigh because it comes from Justice Brennan’s concurrence in a plurality opinion handed down in Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways, the “Pike Plus Test” applies when the DISPROPORTIONATE impact of the neutral State law is out-of-state.
How does the “Pike Plus Test” work?
Do the Pike test without deference to the State finding of the health/safety benefit
In Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways, Iowa passed a law limiting the lengths of certain types of trucks that can be used on its highways and defended the law as a valid exercise of its police power regarding improving safety.
Why did the Supreme Court shoot it down?
It was shown that any safety improvements are only marginal
Under the principle of the Dormant Commerce Clause, a state law that heavily burdens interstate commerce while only marginally furthering a state health and safety purpose is unconstitutional