Structure of Government: Federal-State Relations Flashcards
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
Facts: A New Jersey law prohibited the importation of solid or liquid waste that originated or was collected from outside of the State. Private landfill operators challenged the constitutionality of the law.
Holding: Where a state regulates non-discriminatorily for the achievement of a legitimate local purpose and thereby affects interstate commerce, the state action is constitutional unless the burdens of such regulation on interstate commerce are clearly excessive relative to the putative local benefits of it.
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
Facts: North Carolina adopted a statute requiring all containers of apples shipped into the state display “no grade other than the applicable U.S. grade or standard.” Washington state apple growers challenged the statute as an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
Holding: In the absence of conflicting legislation by Congress, where a state law governing a matter of local concern comes into conflict with the Commerce Clause’s overriding requirement of a national “common market,” the Court is confronted with the task of bringing about an accommodation of the competing national and local interests.
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.
Facts: Bruce Church, Inc. challenged a law enacted by the state of Arizona that prevented the transportation of uncrated cantaloupes within the State. The Plaintiff sued arguing that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Holding: Where a state statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.
Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice
Facts: RMT argued Wisconsin regulations on length and configuration on trucks unconstitutionally burdened or discriminated against interstate commerce.
Holding: Court persuaded that the challenged regulations violate the Commerce Clause because they place a substantial burden on interstate commerce and they cannot be said to make more than the most speculative contribution to highway safety.
