V. Limits placed on state by federal government (Dormant Commerce Clause…
V. Limits placed on state by federal government
Dormant Commerce Clause [DCCL BROUGHT BY ANYONE BUT HAVE TO HAVE STANDING, CORPS CITIZENS, NON CITIZENS LOOK FOR DISCRIMINATION IN ECO ACTIVITY
Is it discriminatory?
If DISCRIMINATORY YES how? [PRESUMPTION = UNCON]
EXECPTION: If law is deemed discriminatory then it must serve a legitimate local purpose and there must not be any reasonable non-discriminatory alternative
Maine V. Taylor (baitfish case) Ct. found law con b/c there was no way to screen imported fish for parasites
Facially discriminatory laws
Discrimination is in the language of the stat
City of Philly v. NJ (trash case) Held that stat discriminates against out of state waste by imposing on out of staters the full burden of preserving the limited landfill space. Stat is union discrimination against out of state trash. Purpose didn't matter.
Facially neutral laws (but challenged b/c discriminatory effect)
Hunt, Gov of State of NC v. WA Apple Advertising Commission (apple labeling) Held: NC stat doesn't meet the state purpose of fighting deceptive marketing or confusion among consumers and a less discriminatory measure such as requiring a USDA stamp on everything would be just as effective. CT says discrim effect. The effect is NC is trying to limit WA apples grading system bc WA apples are bomb.
Exxon Corp v. Gov of Maryland (exxon filling own gas stations first) Held not discriminatory stat bc Maryland has no producers or refiners so the stat doesn't negatively impact out of staters compared to in staters
West Lynn Creamery v. Healy, Commissioner of Ma (milk case) Held ordinance is union bc when a nondiscrim tax is coupled w/ subsidy to one of the groups hurt by the tax a states political process can no longer be relied upon to prevent legislative abuses
You can pass laws that support an industry but it will be struck down if that state is the only one that produces that product?
State of MN v. Clover Leaf Creamery (bans sale of milk in plastic containers) Held that this was CONSTITUTIONAL and not discriminatory bc winners and losers were not divided by state lines
If it looks not discriminatory [ PRESUMPTION = CON]
EXCEPTION: If the law is deemed non-discriminatory it can be UPHELD if the benefits outweigh the burdens. (If burden weighs on interstate commerce)
Loren Pike v. Bruce Church Inc (cantaloupe case all can't grown in AZ must be packed in compact arraignments in closed containers. Leg injures company that has packing facility in CA) Held - UNCON bc states interest in improving the reputation of local can't is not sufficient to justify requiring this company to do its packing not he AZ side of the border
Exceptions to DCCL
Market participation: this exception provides that a state may favor its own citizens in dealing with gov owned business and in receiving benefits from gov programs
Congressional approval: even a clearly UNCON, disc state law will be allowed if approved by Cong
Two ways this could pop up
Congress passed a law that preempted state law (Supremacy Clause)
Two types of preemption
If Congress expressly indicates its intent to preclude state or local regulation in an area it preempts state or local law on the issue
Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly- Congress enacted FCLAA to regulate cigarette labels and Mass attempted to regulate placement of cig ad. Held that state regulation of cig ad placement was preempted despite unclear preemption language because the state could technically use their regulation to ban cig ad entirely.
If federal and state law are mutually exclusive so that a person can't comply with both the state law is deemed preempted
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul. Ct held that Ca statute was not preempted b/c fed law created the "regulatory floor" but states could impose additional standards
Preemption b/c state law impeded the achievement of a federal objective
If a state or local law is deemed to impeded the achievement of a federal objective
Pacific Gas & Electricity v. State Energy Resources- Ct. held that the goal of fed stat was protecting safety and the goal of the state stat was economic, the states economic regulation did not interfere with federal safety goals and was not preempted
Preemption because Federal law occupies the field (FIELD PREEMPTION)
Need for national uniformity on an issue so no state regulation is allowed
Hines v. Davidowitz-PA alien registration stat preempted b/c the fed gov occupies the field
Arizona v. US - Arizona enacted immigration statute when Cong has already enacted the IRCA. Ct. held that the provision of AZ law that criminalize undocumented presence and employment and authorize arrested based on probable cause of removability are preempted b/c the fed gov occupies this field w/ COng IRCA. Provision requiring officers to check immigration stat was not preempted. Uncertain how law is enforced right now.
Congress hasn't acted but the Ct. decides that the state or local law runs afoul of the DCCL or the PICL
DCCL- State and local govs can't place undue burden on interstate commerce
PICL- limits the ability of states to discriminate against out of staters w/ respect to con rights or eco privileges
Privileges and Immunities Clause (ONLY BROUGHT BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS)(If not discrim law survives)
Has the state discriminated against out of staters with regard to the privileges and immunities that it accords its own citizens?
What are the privileges and immunities of citizenship?
The clause protects interests that are fundamental which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments (2 types) (If you have P/I of citizenship YOU CANT DISCRIMINATE)
Doe v. Bolton- limited ability of out of staters to seek abortions in Georgia
Important economic activities
SHRIMPERS- Toomer v. Witsell- Ct. invalidated SC stat that charged $25 for a license from residents and $2500 for out of staters
Baldwin v. Fish & Game- Ct. held that the state COULD discriminate between instate and out of state hunters in the cost of licensees to shoot elk and other big game because it was recreational. It is discrimination but not something that matters with respect to PICL.
If state discriminated against con. right or important eco activity =PRESUMPTION = UNCONSTITUTIONAL
If there is such a discrimination (AS FORMAL MATTER STATE CAN STILL DO IT) If there a sufficient justification for the discrimination? (Don't have cases for this but list the rule)
S.Ct. NH v. Kathryn Piper case gives rule when discrimination is permissible. BUT IN THAT CASE THE CT FOUND THE LAW UNCON AND AN OVERBOARD SOLUTION (bar admittance case)
EXCEPTION: Discrimination is permissible [DONT HAVE ANY CASES]
There is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment and
the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to that states objective