Modern Period: Nondiscriminatory Laws That Burden Interstate Commerce

Introduction to the Modern Period: Nondiscriminatory Laws that have an Incidental Burden on Interstate Commerce

The modern balancing approach to the dormant Commerce Clause in cases that do not involve discrimination begins with South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros., Inc. (1938), the first case in this section. The modern test, sometimes referred to as the Pike test is found in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970), the last case in this section. There the Court stated the test as follows:

“Where the statute regulates evenhandedly 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.”

Kassel, the case in between can be contrasted with Barnwell.

Questions re South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros., Inc. (1938)

What is the state’s interest in Barnwell?

Does the law unreasonably burden interstate commerce?

Why are local highways different from railroads or even interstate highways?

Could Congress regulate local highways using its Commerce Clause Powers?

Should it be required to?

Questions re Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.(1981)

Is the state’s interest the same as in Barnwell? Is this law about the safety of trucks or the number of trucks as the concurrence argues?

Isn’t this the same type of law as in Barnwell?

Is so, why does the Court strike it down?

Is the law is about the number of trucks coming in to the state then doesn’t the law serve that purpose well? If so, then why does the concurrence concur? Is this really a discrimination case?

Does the Court’s decision mean that states must follow the same safety regulations of neighboring states?

Isn’t this an area where it is better for Congress to step in?

Do you agree with the dissent that the Court is not in the best position to second guess the effectiveness of legislation?

Do you agree that the court should not look to the purpose or intent of those who passed the legislation, but only the arguments put forth by the lawyers to justify a piece of legislation?

Questions re Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)

What is the state’s interest in having cantaloupes that are grown in the state to be packaged and labelled in the state?

Is it an important interest?

What impact does the requirement have on interstate commerce?

What is the Pike balancing test?