THE SCOPE OF STATE POWER

Descripción

Graduate/law school Con Law Mapa Mental sobre THE SCOPE OF STATE POWER, creado por ditzymuffin el 05/04/2014.
ditzymuffin
Mapa Mental por ditzymuffin, actualizado hace más de 1 año
ditzymuffin
Creado por ditzymuffin hace más de 10 años
30
0

Resumen del Recurso

THE SCOPE OF STATE POWER
  1. A. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE
    1. TEST: (Issue-State regulation of industry and commerce)
      1. (1) Is this a dormant commerce clause issue? Has Congress spoken? If yes, then Federal law trumps State law if they are in conflict. If no, First consider:
        1. • Is State acting as a Market Participant? If yes, then commerce clause analysis does not apply. If state discriminates and favors its own citizens it’s ok.
          1. If no, (i.e. if State is acting as a regulator) then you have to ask (2) and apply the rest of the dormant commerce clause tests:
          2. (2) Does the law discriminate against commerce?
            1. If yes, then ask:
              1. (1) Is this statute motivated by economic protectionism or is there a legitimate state interest?
                1. (a) If it’s protectionist, then it’ll be per se invalid.
                  1. (b) If there’s a legitimate state interest, then ask
                    1. (2) Can we accomplish the state interest through a less discriminatory means?
                      1. • If yes, statute will be upheld. [Court will almost always find that there was an alternative]
                2. If it doesn’t discriminate, it’s generally applied to interstate and intrastate commerce, then apply these questions-
                  1. (1) Does the state law have a legitimate state purpose? i.e. Is it a POLICE POWER that has to do with the health of general welfare of its citizens?
                    1. (2) Does the state law rationally serve the legitimate state interest? i.e. is there a rational relationship between the law and state interest?
                      1. (3) Balancing Test:
                        1. Do the benefits to the State from this law outweigh the burden to interstate commerce?
                          1. If yes, the state will be valid even if it does burden commerce to an extent.
                3. Discriminating on Interstate Commerce: Means whether you are discriminating a something based on its source. Treating a product differently because of where it came from.
                  1. • The volume of commerce affected does not matter in determining whether a state has discriminated against interstate commerce. Statute that requires electric plants to use 10% coal is invalid. Oklahoma can compete for 100% while out of staters can only compete for 90%.

                    Nota:

                    • 1.    New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach An Ohio statute denies arebate to ethanol that comes from states that don’t grant a tax credit to ethanol from Ohio.  Basically, ifKentucky gives a rebate to Ohio produced ethanol, then Ohio gives a rebate to Kentucky.  Ohio also gives a cashsubsidy.  Other states are left our if they don’t have a tax rebate statute. Some states are benefited by the tax credit statute, but it stilldiscriminates on other states that don’t do the rebate.  Indiana can’t get a rebate because theyrepealed their rebate statute. HELD:  cash subsidy granted to New Energy Co. is fine, but discriminatory taxation of out of state manufacturersviolates the Commerce Clause.  “The Commerce Clause doesn’t prohibit all state action designed to give the residents an advantage in the marketplace, but only action of that description in connection with the State’s regulation of interstate commerce.”    
                    •       •       State is telling other states what to do-it’s not their business to foster interstate commerce.     
                    1. Note: The court is more likely to accept a valid police power interest. It’s likely to do this if the state regulation does not act as a complete bar on interstate commerce. If there’s an alternative route, the court is more likely to find that statute valid.

                      Nota:

                      •   1.    Distinguishing Buck and Bradley:   a.    In Buck, Washington denied a license to travel from Washington and Oregon.  Court says it’s unconst. Because there is a prohibition of competition.  Remember Congress has power to determine “channels” and facilities of commerce (see Lopez)   b.    In Bradley, Ohio denies Bradley a license to run a truck from Cleveland to Michigan.  Where the state says that the purpose of the statute is safety-congestion, it’s likeable by the Court.  (it’s a police power-health, safety, welfare)    •       Analysis:  If state interest is to keep business out, courts strike it down.  In Buck there is a total prohibition; it is a denial to take any route.  However, in Bradley, P can’t use one particular route but he is free to come up with an alternate route.      
                      •   1.    South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell   S.C. passes a statute that trucks can’t be wider than 90 inches.  Other states allow their truck to be longer.  If you have a 95 in. truck, you have to go around the highway.  HELD:  Upheld.  Roads are a local matter and this is a safety concern.  Court is deferential to state legislature.  There is a rational relationship between regulating truck length and safety.      
                    2. Construct your test for Constitutionality of state regulations under commerce clause:
                      1. 1. Is this a dormant commerce clause issue? Yes. (states are free to regulate)
                        1. 2. Does the state statute discriminate against interstate commerce? No. It places same burdens in the state as out of state. Law doesn’t single out any state.
                          1. Apply: Generally Applicable Law Prongs
                          2. Note: If state law doesn’t discriminate, it’s more likely to be upheld because it’s a generally applicable law. If it’s a burdensome law, people in the state will complain to their legislature. The law is probably reasonable if it burdens people in the state and out of the state just the same. (but if burden it on out of staters, they can’t do anything about it because they can’t complain to the legislature)
                            1. 4.Court looks at three prongs for the generally applicable laws:
                              1. (1) Is there a legitimate state interest?
                                1. (2) Does law rationally serve the safety interest? (relationship between means and ends) No. There was evidence that safety was actually jeapordized because there were more accidents as result of this law.
                                  1. (3) Do the burdens on commerce outweigh the benefits?

                                    Nota:

                                    • Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona   This is a case dealing with state regulation of railroad car size.  Railroads are not a matter of local concern (like highways).   This is declared a burden on commerce,  HELD:  Court says the burdens on interstate commerce outweigh the safety interest.  Court doesn’t want to say there’s no rational basis (questioning Congressional wisdom)       
                                Mostrar resumen completo Ocultar resumen completo

                                Similar

                                IV. Federalism → Limits on State local government power
                                ditzymuffin
                                Due Process
                                ditzymuffin
                                A. Preemption
                                ditzymuffin
                                Con Law Cases
                                Michael Rush
                                Federal Legislation Powers - Taxing Power
                                ditzymuffin
                                G. Congress’ Power under § 5 of the 14th Amendment
                                ditzymuffin
                                C. Levels of Scrutiny
                                ditzymuffin
                                Judical Pwrs Art. 3
                                ditzymuffin
                                Federal Legislation Powers - Commerce
                                ditzymuffin
                                State Sovereignty
                                ditzymuffin
                                Article II of the Constitution defines pwrs of the President and the Executive Branch
                                ditzymuffin