Also known as: commerce and trade · interstate commerce
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Economic activity involving the exchange, transportation, and processing of goods and services across state lines. This activity triggers federal regulatory authority and receives protection from state laws that discriminate against out-of-state participants or impose protectionist barriers.
Threshold Capital operates a baitfish harvesting business in State A. State A enacts a statute barring any export of live baitfish to out-of-state buyers in order to keep supply and prices favorable for local anglers. Threshold Capital contracts to sell its entire harvest to an out-of-state distributor but is blocked at the border. The distributor sues, arguing the ban discriminates against interstate commerce.
Terra Financial owns a solid-waste transfer station in City B. City B passes an ordinance requiring all locally generated waste to be processed at a designated in-state facility before any shipment across state lines. Terra Financial has contracted with an out-of-state processor offering lower rates. The out-of-state processor sues to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance.
Triumph Manufacturing purchases state-owned timber from State C under a contract that requires all purchased logs to be processed inside State C before any out-of-state shipment. Triumph Manufacturing plans to ship raw logs to its mill in State D for more efficient processing. State C officials threaten to cancel the contract if the logs leave unprocessed.
True North Logistics transports spent nuclear fuel from reactors in several states. Congress has enacted a statute expressly permitting states to impose higher disposal fees on out-of-state nuclear waste. State E levies the authorized surcharge on True North Logistics shipments originating outside State E. True North Logistics challenges the fee as unconstitutional discrimination.
Tori Taylor owns an out-of-state trucking company that regularly hauls freight through State F. Congress has passed legislation allowing states to impose a higher registration tax on out-of-state carriers than on local carriers. State F collects the higher tax from Taylor's company. Taylor sues, claiming the tax violates the Commerce Clause.
Thomas Thompson, a local resident, is arrested inside a State G high school for carrying a handgun. The federal government prosecutes him under a statute criminalizing firearm possession in school zones. Thompson moves to dismiss, arguing the statute exceeds Congress's power to regulate trade and commerce because the conduct is purely local and non-economic.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseA claim arises under federal law when the complaint alleges that state action violates constitutional protections for interstate commerce. Federal district courts therefore possess subject-matter jurisdiction over such suits even when the underlying conduct also involves state administrative rules such as toll schedules.
Yes. When Congress expressly permits states to impose surcharges or other differential treatment on out-of-state nuclear waste or similar articles, the resulting state measures do not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.
No. Although a state may favor its own residents in the initial sale of state-owned resources, it may not attach conditions that control subsequent out-of-state commercial activity by purchasers.
States may not prohibit the export of locally obtained natural resources solely to shield in-state purchasers from higher out-of-state prices, because such bans constitute impermissible economic protectionism.
…as a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as imposing a constitutionally prohibited burden on interstate commerce. The cause comes here on appeal under § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 344 (a), appellant assigning as error that the challenged statutes as applied infringe the due process…