Residual State Powers—and Their Limits The Commerce Clause as a Limitation on State Regulatory Power (Dormant Commerce Clause) Flashcards
SCOTUS Summary of Basic Dormant Commerce Clause Rules
A discriminatory law is “virtually per se invalid” and will survive only if it “advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.” Absent discrimination for the forbidden purpose, however, the3 law “will be upheld unless the burden imposed on [interstate] commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Pike v. Bruce Church. State law frequently survives this Pike scrutiny, though not always, as in Pike itself.
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc.
Individual states may not enact laws that obstruct interstate commerce
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc.
Issue
Whether a NY law that prohibited the sale of milk from outside NY unless the seller met pricing criteria was unconstitutional.
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc.
Facts
The NY Milk Control Act set a minimum price of milk within the state and mandated that milk imported from other states must be sold at that same minimum. Plaintiff sued saying the act restricted interstate commerce.
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc.
Reasoning
The Commerce Clause was included in the Constitution to stop rivalries between states. States may not use the welfare of its citizens to be a valid reason for a law that discriminates between states. The framers intended the nation to have a national economy. The law is like a tariff. The law was only to protect NY
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc.
Holding
The act was unconstitutional
Dean Milk Co. v. Madison
A state may not pass a law that discriminates against interstate commerce if there is another effective solution to the reason the law was passed.
Dean Milk Co. v. Madison
Issue
Whether Madison, Wisconsin’s ordinance restricting where milk was processed and bottled and denying the importation of milk unless a source was inspected by a Madison official was unconstitutional
Dean Milk Co. v. Madison
Facts
Madison passed an ordinance restricting where milk was pasteurized and where milk could be imported from. Defendant was an Illinois company that distributed milk throughout Illinois and Wisconsin and said the law negatively affects the Commerce Clause
Dean Milk Co. v. Madison
Reasoning
Madison had a valid reason for this law - to ensure milk was processed in a sanitary manner. And Congress has not regulated this. However, it was discriminatory and placed a great burden on interstate commerce and there were other ways to achieve its goal that would not create that burden
Dean Milk Co. v. Madison
Holding:
The ordinance was unconstitutional.
Rational Basis Review
Rational basis review requires that a law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
South Carolina Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros.
States may enact non-discriminatory laws that put a burden on interstate commerce if Congress has not regulated that area and the state has a rational basis for the law
South Carolina Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros.
Issue
Whether SC’s law restricting the size of vehicles on its highways was unconstitutional
South Carolina Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros.
Facts
South Carolina passed a law requiring “semi-trailer motor trucks” to be no more than 90 inches wide and no more than 20,000 pounds to use its state highways.
South Carolina Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros.
Reasoning
Congress has not issued regulations. There are many local concerns that affect interstate commence that Congress have left to the states. State highways are built, owned and maintained by the state and the state is responsible for their safety. The court upheld many similar laws. States may put a burden on interstate commerce with this type of law as long as it doesn’t discriminate because of the powers the Constitution left for them. This law can’t discriminate because it must affect interstate and intrastate traffic to be effective. Where Congress hasn’t legislated an issue the court may only consider whether the state acted within its province and whether the means reasonably met its ends. The court already had precedent that states have the right to set restrictions on vehicle sizes for safety. The court cannot decide the reasonableness of a legislative except to see whether the state has a rational basis for the law and SC did, so the law was constitutional
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona
If a state law is nondiscriminatory but substantially affects interstate commerce, it is unconstitutional
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona
Issue
Whether Arizona’s law limiting the number of cars on a train burdens interstate commerce and if so, is the burden enough to make the law unconstitutional
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona
Facts
Arizona passed a law requiring trains to have no more than 14 passenger or 70 freight cars to use their railways.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona
Reasoning:
Under the Commerce Clause, when there’s a conflict of state and national interest and Congress hasn’t acted, the Court has the final say. Most train sizes are not regulated and the AZ law impedes interstate commerce because trains coming into AZ must stop and separate to make shorter trains. The law has a very minor effect on safety. If train sizes are regulated at all, it must come from Congress so there’s uniformity. Although the law is nondiscriminatory, it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce by making transportation harder between states
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona
Holding
The law was unconstitutional
