Limits on State Regulatory and Taxing Power Flashcards
What is the Dormant Commerce Clause? Where is it found in the Constitution?
Where Congress has NOT acted, Courts may invalidate State/local laws if they discriminate against out of state actors or goods, or if they place an undue burden on interstate commerce
Inferred from Art. 1 Sec. 8 (authority of Congress to regulate commerce among the states; IE – the commerce clause)
Whats the difference between the DCC and CC?
CC = arises when the issue is whether congress has authority to adopt a law DCC = when the issue is a challenge to an act by the state or local government (IE – when congress does NOT act)
Whats the difference between a Facially discriminatory & Neutral law?
Facially discriminatory = the statute expressly states discrimination towards out of staters
Facially neutral = the statute seems neutral on its face but may have a discriminatory impact purpose when put into effect
DCC Test
Is the state statute discriminating against out of staters? (Facially or otherwise – be able to describe how this is happening.)
- If so, uphold only if the discriminatory law is narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate local purpose
- Law is NOT narrowly tailored if there are reasonable alternatives means that the state could have pursued that would not have placed an undue burden on interstate commerce? (See Dean Milk)
If the state statute is NOT discriminating against out of staters, is there nevertheless a constitutional problem?
- Invalidate law only if burden on IC is clearly excessive in relation to the putative benefits to the state; see the Pike Balancing Test. (Also see Bibb)
Does an exception apply?
- Be mindful of exceptions for Congressional approval and states as market participants
Supremacy Clause (2 types of Preemption)
If there is a conflict between state and federal law, federal law shall preempt state law
2 types: Express & Implied
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
MA law regulating cigarette ads; Court holds that it is preempted by fed law, because Congress intended to inform and protect re: cigarettes, which conflicts w/ MA law
Under express preemption, there must be a clear and manifest intention from Congress to preempt the state law, because the scope of what is preempted is not always clear.
3 types of Implied Preemption
- Laws conflict
- Impedes a federal objective
- Field preemption
Pacific Gas & Electric v. State Energy (1983)
Does CA law regulating the construction of nuclear power plants interfere with a federal legislative goal?; court hold thats CA law does NOT impede the federal objective and is thus NOT preempted, because the laws purposes do not conflict (economic purpose vs. safety purpose)
Where a state law looks to impede a federal legislative objective, look to the purpose of the laws and interpretation of the laws to determine existence/extent of conflict.
Arizona v. US (2012)
Does federal law preempt several provisions of an AZ law regulating Immigration issues?; Court holds that fed. law DOES preempt the AZ law because Immigration law/policy is an area fed. gov. needs to be able to speak with one voice on the issues.
Where Fed law does not expressly preempt state law, preemption may be found if Congress clearly intended to leave no room for state supplementation (Field Preemption).
Pike Balancing Test
If the state law is NOT discriminatory, is there nevertheless a constitutional issue?
Where the state law regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legit local purpose, and the effects on IC are only incidental, the law will be upheld unless the burden on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits
2 exceptions to DCC (a state law will be validated despite undue burden/discrimination IF:)
Congressional Approval: if Congress explicitly approves state law, the DCC issue is resolved (Congress will have acted, removing it from DCC scope; see Western & Southern case)
Market Participant: A state may favor its own residents in receiving benefits from government programs or in dealing with state owned businesses in situations that would otherwise violate the DCC, if State is literally a participant in the market and not acting as a regulator or using their authority; State is not behaving like a “State”, so they cant be held liable for acting in a protectionist way; look for regulation “downstream” to invalidate this exception; see Alaska Timber Case)
City of Philly v. NJ (1978)
NJ Law prohibits importation of waste from other states; court holds this is a violation of the DCC.
NJ can look out for its financial wellbeing and its environment, BUT it can’t do that by discriminating against the flow of interstate commerce unless there is some reason OTHER than the out of state origin of those articles; this is state protectionism (facial discrimination)
Hunt v. Wash. Apple (1977)
A NC law requires all apple containers shipped into state to show only US grade (not Washington grade); Court held this law was neutral, but when put into effect, its purpose/impact was discriminatory/state protectionism
If not expressly/facially discriminatory, discriminatory purpose/impact is sufficient for a state law to be deemed discriminatory and violating the DCC
Exxon v. Maryland (1978)
Maryland law restrict petroleum producers ability to operate gas stations within the state; court holds this does not violate the DCC because the laws actual effect is not discriminatory
When the laws are NOT facially discriminatory, court has the discretion to determine whether purpose/impact of the law is discriminatory when put into effect
Dean Milk (1951)
WI law requires sale of milk within the cities’ Jx; Court holds law violates DCC because law is not narrowly tailored to achieve a legit local purpose; availability of reasonable and adequate alternatives supports this (milk from other states is just as healthy)
When a neutral state law discriminates/unduly burdens IC by its effect, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate local purpose in order to be upheld
