Limits on State Regulatory and Taxing Powers Flashcards
The NLEA requires that all food labels identify artificial flavors. The NLEA also specifies that state food-labeling laws that impose requirements that are not identical to the federal labeling regulations are void.
A state passed a law that allows food manufacturers to label their food as “all natural” if it contains 0.05% or less of any artificial flavor unless there is more than 0.05% of any artificial flavor present.
A food man. in the state is trying to decide whether it must follow federal or state law for its new product that contains 0.25% of an artificial flavor.
Which law governs the food manufacturers label?
Federal law, because the NLEA expressly preempts state regulation in food labels
A state law requires non-citizens in the US to register with the state and pay a registration fee of $200 before being able to leave an apartment in the state. In addition, noncitizens who do not register with the state are subject to a fine of not more than $200 or imprisonment of not more than 60 days. Student did not register with the state or pay the fee.
Federal regulations govern how noncitizens enter the US, how they acquire citizenship and how they may be deported. Under federal statute, failure to register results in a fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment for not more than 6 months.
The student challenged the state law in federal court, arguing that it was preempted by federal law.
Is the Student Correct?
Yes, because Congress regulates the entire field of law dealing with noncitizen registration
A state statute enacted 10 years ago requires any hair dye sold in the state to have less than 10% of ammonia.
A federal statute requires all hair dye bottles to be labeled with the amount of ammonia and requires that hair dye have less than 12% ammonia.
Which of the following is the best argument the state can make for the continued validity of its statute?
The purpose of the state law is consistent with the purpose of the federal statute, enforcing the law would not interfere with full execution of the statute, and there is no evidence that Congress intended to preclude the States from enacting supplemental laws on this subject
A cigarette maker was sued by smokers in federal court for violating a state law that prohibited deceptive practices in any trade or commerce.
The Cigarette maker contended that the smokers action was preempted by the FCALA.
For whom should the court rule?
The Cigarette smokers, because the federal act does not preempt the state law
A state is concerned about a possible reduction in its native fish. To curb excessive fishing, the state enacted a statute raising the cost of fishing licenses for out of state residents, which is 10x more the cost for in state residents
Is the Statute likely constitutional?
No, because the statute violated the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV
A state imposes an income tax on its residents for income earned everywhere and imposes an income tax on non-residents for income earned from real property or businesses located in the state. The state permits its residents to deduct in full expenses associated with their income, while non-residents may deduct only those expenses associated with their in-state real property and business. In addition, the state provides a personal tax exemption for residents but denies a personal exemption for nonresidents.
Has the state violated the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV of the Us Constitution?
Yes, with respect to the differing exemptions only
A strain of the flu impacted chickens from several states located in the same geographic region of the US. A state legislature passed a statute banning importation of out of state chickens. Public health officials determined that banning the out of state chickens was the only feasible way to stop the flu from spreading.
An out of state chicken farmer filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
Is the chicken farmer likely to prevail?
No, because the statute serves an important local interest and no other nondiscriminatory means are available
Congress passed a federal act prohibiting the transfer of physical lottery tickets through channels of interstate commerce. The act was later amended to explicitly allow a state to ban the online sale of its lottery tickets by out of state businesses.
The legislature of State A passed a statute prohibiting the online sale of State A lottery tickets by private businesses headquartered in other states.
An out of state business that sold State A’s lottery tickets online filed a lawsuit in federal court
Is the out of state business likely to prevail?
No, because Congress explicitly and unmistakably permitted states to ban the online sale of lottery tickets by out of state businesses.
A state legislature enacted a statute establishing a cash subsidy for any movie production filming in the state that agreed to exclusively contract with local businesses for production related services.
An association of businesses involved in another state’s film industry filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statute in federal court, alleging in violated the DCC
Is the statute likely to be upheld?
Yes, because the statute creates a subsidy
State X’s legislature passed a statute designed to incentivize recycling beverage bottles. The statute required all bottles sold within State X to bear a special mark that allowed the bottle to be accepted at deposit stations. To prevent people from crossing state lines to redeem rebates for bottle purchased outside of State X, statute prohibited bottling companies from using the special mark on bottles sold anywhere outside State X’s borders
An association of bottlers from other states filed suit in federal court, alleging the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the DCC
Is the court likely to find that the statute is constitutional?
No, because the statute purposefully regulates extraterritorial activity
A state statute required all fruits and vegetables offered for sale in the state to be packed in a regular compact arrangement in closed standard containers.
The corporate farm brought an action to enjoin the state official from enforcing the order, that it violated the DCC
For whom should the Court rule?
The corporate farm, because the law’s local benefit is clearly exceeded by its burden on interstate commerce
