🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • Dormant Commerce Clause
CONLAW#047
Legal Definition
The Dormant Commerce Clause is the negative implication of the Commerce Clause. A state law violates the dormant commerce clause if it either (1) discriminates against out-of-state competition to benefit local economic interests, or (2) is unduly burdensome.
Plain English Explanation
The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The dormant commerce clause is the flip side of this - it prevents states from passing laws that improperly burden interstate commerce when Congress has not acted.
There are two ways a state can violate the dormant commerce clause:
(1) If the law discriminates against out-of-state businesses to favor in-state ones. For example, a law that taxes out-of-state products but not in-state ones.
(2) If the law imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce and the free flow of goods across state lines, even if the burden is equal on in-state and out-of-state businesses. For instance, a law that makes it extremely expensive to transport goods on interstate highways.
The purpose is to prevent states from unfairly harming the national economy by enacting protectionist laws favoring in-state business interests or obstructing the free flow of commerce between states. It maintains an open, even playing field.
However, laws that incidentally burden commerce may be allowed if the state has a strong policy reason. There are some exceptions. But outright discrimination against out-of-staters is struck down.
There are two ways a state can violate the dormant commerce clause:
(1) If the law discriminates against out-of-state businesses to favor in-state ones. For example, a law that taxes out-of-state products but not in-state ones.
(2) If the law imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce and the free flow of goods across state lines, even if the burden is equal on in-state and out-of-state businesses. For instance, a law that makes it extremely expensive to transport goods on interstate highways.
The purpose is to prevent states from unfairly harming the national economy by enacting protectionist laws favoring in-state business interests or obstructing the free flow of commerce between states. It maintains an open, even playing field.
However, laws that incidentally burden commerce may be allowed if the state has a strong policy reason. There are some exceptions. But outright discrimination against out-of-staters is struck down.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Hypofornia passes a law that only allows wine produced within the state to be sold at local supermarkets, banning all out-of-state wines. Bob, a winemaker from New Hypoland, can no longer sell his award-winning wine in Hypofornia. Result: This law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminates against out-of-state competition, like Bob's wine, to benefit local businesses, meaning Bob has a strong case that the law unfairly targets his products.
Hypo 2: New Hypoland creates a new regulation requiring all trucks entering the state to use a specific type of eco-friendly tire not produced locally. The cost of these tires is significantly higher than standard tires, and they have to be ordered from a manufacturer in another country. Sam, who runs a delivery company in Hypofornia, finds that this law makes it prohibitively expensive to deliver goods to New Hypoland. Result: This law is an example of an undue burden on interstate commerce because it significantly increases the cost for out-of-state businesses like Sam's to operate in New Hypoland, violating the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Hypo 3: Hypofornia passes a law requiring all beef sold in the state to pass a special inspection for a disease that's never been found in Hypofornia but is common in New Hypoland. Bob, who raises cattle in New Hypoland, finds this requirement unnecessary and costly, as it targets a problem specific to his state. Result: This law could be seen as both discriminatory and unduly burdensome to out-of-state businesses like Bob's, potentially violating the Dormant Commerce Clause by creating an unnecessary barrier to entry for out-of-state beef.
Hypo 4: New Hypoland passes a law stating that all products sold in the state must list ingredients in both English and Spanish. Sam, who sells artisanal soaps from Hypofornia, finds this requirement easy to meet with minimal cost. Result: This law does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because it applies equally to in-state and out-of-state businesses without discriminating or imposing an undue burden, meaning it's a fair regulation of commerce.
Hypo 5: Hawaii implements strict regulations requiring all imported fruits and plants to undergo a thorough inspection process to prevent the introduction of invasive species that could harm the local ecosystem. Sam, a farmer in California, wants to export his organic apples to Hawaii but finds the inspection process costly and time-consuming. Result: This law does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because it serves a legitimate local purpose—protecting Hawaii’s unique environment from invasive species. The regulation is non-discriminatory as it applies equally to all imported fruits and plants, regardless of their origin. Since the inspection process is aimed at addressing a real threat to Hawaii’s ecosystem, the law is likely to be upheld as a valid exercise of the state’s police powers, even though it may impose some burden on interstate commerce.
Hypo 2: New Hypoland creates a new regulation requiring all trucks entering the state to use a specific type of eco-friendly tire not produced locally. The cost of these tires is significantly higher than standard tires, and they have to be ordered from a manufacturer in another country. Sam, who runs a delivery company in Hypofornia, finds that this law makes it prohibitively expensive to deliver goods to New Hypoland. Result: This law is an example of an undue burden on interstate commerce because it significantly increases the cost for out-of-state businesses like Sam's to operate in New Hypoland, violating the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Hypo 3: Hypofornia passes a law requiring all beef sold in the state to pass a special inspection for a disease that's never been found in Hypofornia but is common in New Hypoland. Bob, who raises cattle in New Hypoland, finds this requirement unnecessary and costly, as it targets a problem specific to his state. Result: This law could be seen as both discriminatory and unduly burdensome to out-of-state businesses like Bob's, potentially violating the Dormant Commerce Clause by creating an unnecessary barrier to entry for out-of-state beef.
Hypo 4: New Hypoland passes a law stating that all products sold in the state must list ingredients in both English and Spanish. Sam, who sells artisanal soaps from Hypofornia, finds this requirement easy to meet with minimal cost. Result: This law does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because it applies equally to in-state and out-of-state businesses without discriminating or imposing an undue burden, meaning it's a fair regulation of commerce.
Hypo 5: Hawaii implements strict regulations requiring all imported fruits and plants to undergo a thorough inspection process to prevent the introduction of invasive species that could harm the local ecosystem. Sam, a farmer in California, wants to export his organic apples to Hawaii but finds the inspection process costly and time-consuming. Result: This law does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because it serves a legitimate local purpose—protecting Hawaii’s unique environment from invasive species. The regulation is non-discriminatory as it applies equally to all imported fruits and plants, regardless of their origin. Since the inspection process is aimed at addressing a real threat to Hawaii’s ecosystem, the law is likely to be upheld as a valid exercise of the state’s police powers, even though it may impose some burden on interstate commerce.
Visual Aids
