commerce clause

This case raises the issue of whether Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce allows it to proscribe the use of medical marijuana. The plaintiff-appellees, Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, suffer from "more than serious medical conditions," including, respectively, an inoperable brain tumor and a degenerative spinal disease. Under the advice of their doctors and the auspicious of California's Compassionate Use Act, they both use California-grown marijuana to treat the symptoms of their diseases. Fearing prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act, the plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief in Federal District Court where they were denied the grant of a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit overturned this decision, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. The Court will determine whether the use of California-grown medical marijuana substantially effects interstate commerce based on the four-factor balancing test established in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and refined in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Though none of the factors are particularly weighty in the present case, the majority of them point to Congress' ability to regulate this activity and the Court is likely to overturn the Ninth Circuit's preliminary injunction.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

Petitioner Carol Anne Bond was arrested in 2007 for attempts to poison a romantic rival, which culminated in a minor burn to the rival’s thumb. A federal district court sentenced Bond to six years in prison and five years of supervised release, and ordered her to pay a fine and make restitution, under the authority of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. Congress passed that statute to implement an international arms-control agreement to prohibit chemical warfare. Bond challenged her conviction, claiming the statute’s application to her domestic conduct exceeded Congress’ limited and enumerated powers. In reviewing her challenge, the Third Circuit held that Congress’ power to implement treaties validated the statute and Bond’s conviction. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will affect not only how broadly federal criminal statutes apply, but also the scope of Congress’ authority to implement treaties.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

The Ohio State investment tax credit (Ohio Revised Code ? 5733.33) encourages development in economically depressed areas by providing tax breaks to companies or individuals that choose to locate in such areas and to install new manufacturing machinery and equipment. The personal property tax incentive, under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. ?? 5709.62 and 5709.631, permits municipalities to grant property tax exemptions to corporations that develop in economically depressed areas and meet certain employment and investment levels. Together, these two statutes create incentives for corporate development in Ohio in otherwise unfavorable locations. Respondents, state and non-state taxpayers and one Ohio business forced to relocate upon the construction of a DaimlerChrysler plant, argue that this tax-incentive scheme is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits state taxes from discriminating against interstate commerce. Petitioners assert that (1) the Respondents lack standing to bring the suit, and (2) the dormant Commerce Clause prevents only state taxes which discourage companies from doing businesses in other states and not incentives that encourage companies to locate within the state.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

In the Granholm, Swedenburg, and Michigan Beer cases, the Court must consider how much power the Twenty-First Amendment grants states to regulate the importation of alcoholic beverages. The cases deal with states that bar out-of-state companies from shipping alcohol directly to in-state customers. Such states generally require liquor distribution through licensed in-state wholesalers. The Twenty-First Amendment, which explicitly declares that transporting liquor into a state "in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited," would seem to grant states wide leeway to regulate the importation of alcohol. However, the Commerce Clause specifically grants Congress, not the states, the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States." Historically, courts have read the Commerce Clause as preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce. The states claim that they are simply trying to regulate the liquor market, collect all applicable taxes and make sure alcohol stays out of minors' hands, but the plaintiffs, who include liquor interests and consumers, accuse the states of protecting their local industries, in violation of the Commerce Clause.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“VFOIA”) states that “all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the Commonwealth.” Va.Code Ann. § 2.2-3704(A). Petitioners Mark McBurney and Roger Hurlbert made VFOIA requests and were denied because they are not citizens of Virginia. After being denied, Petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents, the agencies which denied their VFOIA requests, with the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Petitioners argued that the VFOIA’s citizens-only provision violated their rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Hurlbert’s rights under the dormant Commerce Clause. The District Court granted summary judgment for the agencies, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Petitioners now appeal, arguing that Virginia’s citizens-only restriction violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminates against out-of state economic interests both facially and in effect, and also violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it creates an inequality in access to information. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact whether a state is required allow all United States citizens to access their public records. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether California’s Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause by failing the extraterritoriality doctrine and the Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. balancing test. National Pork Producers Council (“NPPC”) argues that Proposition 12 violates the extraterritoriality doctrine by producing a “practical effect,” beyond its influence in California, that unduly burdens the integrated national pork market. NPPC also claims that Proposition 12 does not pass the Pike balancing test, as it imposes an undue burden on out-of-state commerce that is clearly excessive compared to its local benefits. Karen Ross, California’s Secretary of Food and Agriculture, counters that Proposition 12 regulates only the in-state pork market and that the opposing side’s expansive reading of the extraterritoriality doctrine may render it meaningless. Ross also argues that Proposition 12 survives the Pike balancing test. The outcome of this case has important implications for determining the scope of the dormant Commerce Clause as well as the extent of states’ police power.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether New York City’s (the “City”) restrictions on the transportation of handguns is unconstitutional pursuant to the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, or the fundamental right to travel. Under a former rule, the City issued premises licenses to qualified individuals. Such licenses permitted a licensee to possess a handgun at the licensee’s City residence but placed restrictions upon the transportation of the handgun to locations outside of the City. Romolo Colantone, Efrain Alvarez, and Tony Irizarry (collectively, “Petitioners”) were issued premises licenses and wanted to use their handguns at shooting ranges and competitions located outside of the City, and Colantone wanted to transport his handgun to and from his second home in upstate New York. Petitioners, joined by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, argue that the City’s transportation restrictions violate the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the fundamental right to travel. The City, joined by the New York City Police Department-License Division, counters that its former rule is a constitutional exercise of its regulatory power and protects public safety. The City recently amended the rule at issue, so the City also argues that this case is moot. In addition to impacting City residents who possess handguns under a premises license, the Court’s decision will have implications for public safety concerns of vulnerable populations and populations living within major urban areas and is likely to inform national debate on gun control.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court whether an airline ramp supervisor is exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act codifies the federal policy for disputes to go through arbitration, exempting workers that engage in interstate commerce. Southwest Airlines argues that Saxon must resolve her dispute through arbitration because Saxon is not an exempt employee under the Act. Saxon argues that her work as a ramp supervisor includes loading and unloading cargo that travels interstate, so she is exempt from mandatory arbitration. The outcome of this case has implications for defining the limits of the Federal Arbitration Act and how courts define a worker operating in interstate commerce.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Tarrant Regional Water District ("Tarrant") seeks to export water to Texas from multiple sources within Oklahoma which are covered by the Red River Compact ("Compact"), a congressionally approved water apportionment agreement between Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.  In 2007, Tarrant sued members of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board ("OWRB"), including Herrmann, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.  Tarrant sought a declaratory judgment that certain Oklahoma statutes dealing with water apportionment are unconstitutional and an injunction preventing the OWRB from applying the statutes to Tarrant's application for water.  Tarrant argued that the Oklahoma statutes violate the dormant Commerce Clause by burdening interstate commerce and that the statutes are preempted insofar as they conflict with the Compact's language. Tarrant argues that the Compact provides Texas with cross-border rights to access water located in Oklahoma and that Oklahoma’s water permitting statutes violate the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state water users. OWRB argues that the signatory states to the Compact did not surrender their sovereignty by signing the Compact and that the Commerce Clause does not apply in this case because the Compact shelters Oklahoma’s water laws from scrutiny under the Commerce Clause.  Both parties fear that this decision, if decided for the opposing party, will cause severe social, economic, and environmental harm to their states.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by