Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A "negative" or "dormant" component to the Commerce Clause has been the subject of scholarly discussion for many decades. [28] Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia [29] [30] and Clarence Thomas [31] have rejected the notion of a Dormant Commerce Clause.
Pages in category "United States Dormant Commerce Clause case law" The following 41 pages are in this category, out of 41 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
Clause Name Article Section Clause 1808 Clause [citation needed] I: 9: 1 Admissions Clause: IV: 3: 1 Advice and Consent Clause: II: 2: 2 Appointments Clause: II: 2: 2 Apportionment of Representatives and Taxes Clause: I: 2: 3 Arisings Clause [citation needed] III: 2: 1 Basket Clause: I: 8: 18 Case or Controversy Clause: III: 2: 1 Coefficient ...
As to the Dormant Commerce Clause in particular, the Court clarified that, while not a pro tanto repeal, the Twenty-First Amendment nonetheless "primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause". [40] In South Dakota v.
United States Dormant Commerce Clause case law (41 P) Pages in category "United States Commerce Clause case law" The following 56 pages are in this category, out of 56 total.
reasonableness of officers' warrantless entry into a home to stop a fight under the "emergency aid exception" Garcetti v. Ceballos: 547 U.S. 410 (2006) extent of public employees' First Amendment right to free speech in the workplace Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. 547 U.S. 451 (2006) activities subject to RICO: Zedner v. United States: 547 U ...
State statutes that have a negative effect on interstate commerce are unconstitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause.Justice Stewart used a balancing test.. 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 ...
The challengers, including Exxon, claimed that the law violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Stevens wrote for the majority, which disagreed with Exxon et al.: "Since Maryland's entire gasoline supply flows in interstate commerce and since there are no local producers or refiners, such claims of disparate treatment between interstate ...