DOCSLIB.ORG

Standinc - Cl 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Standinc - Cl 1 STANDINC - CL 1 General Principles A. Constitutional (p. 37) 1. Actual injury (concrete, personalized, can he non—economic) 2. Causal relation between injury and delëndant AND 3. Likely to be redressed by court decision. 13. Prudential (p. 48) I. No third party plaintiff (except obstacle and close relationship) 2. No generalized grievances 3. Plaintifl in zone of interests (usually’ statute) II. Application of Generalized Grievances A. Taxpayer — • l”rothingham is general rule no standing a. Flast exception — • Must be challenging legislation Art. 1, section 8 (Congressional appropriations) a. Valley Forge, Schlesinger, 11cm And 2. Must he claiming a speci tic Constitutional guarantee (maybe only Establishment Clause) a. Richardson, I 1cm [3. Citizenship status — No standing allowed on this basis C. No possible P not grounds lbr standing Ill. Congressional grant of standing A. Allowed if recipient is personally entitled — Congress can’t delegate power to enforce laws or permit a general citizen interest in laws ol procedures being enforced. Must be a specific interest (see page 35 in Lujan), hut can he widely shared (see Akins page 45). 13. USSC can’t invalidate Congressional grant of standmg on prudeiflial grounds, only Constitutional. IV. 2013 Cases A. Future injury = certainly impeding (Clapper) 13. Executive refuses = Do third parties have standing to defend? 1. No standing to defend on state law (ilollingsworth — 5/4) 2. Standing to defcnd in federal law-need authorization? (Windsor — 6/3) FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER — CL 2 A. Souiteof Power— Coast. Art. III. Sec. 2 Subject matter I imit 2. Must be case or controversy a. Advisory Opinion b. Standing (handout I) e. Ripeness d. Mootness 13. Judicial Power over other branches Judicial Review — availability to declare conflict with Const. — Marbury 2. Power over executive - Marbury a. No immunity ftw any office — all subject to mandamus or injunction 1,. Judiciary won’t do sonic things — political Question 1. Won’t order acts within political discretion 2. Won’t Fill office — Conlid. Agent 3. See l3aker v. Carr — p.57 C. Congressional control over Judiciary 1. Congress may grant jurisdiction in the positive; silence or absence of statute means no jurisdiction: can write in negative and lake away jurisdiction ilCongress so desires. McCardle 2. Congress can contro] except a. Other limits in the Consi. h. Can’t exercise judicial power — dictate result c. Can’t interfere in continuing jurisdiction — on—going ease 3. USSC a. Congress can’t reniove original jurisdiction in Const. b. Essential functions argument as a limit on Congress (probably not accepted) e. Practical problems 1. Freeze USSC precedent 2. Freeze lower cts. And state cts. d. Control number USSC Justices 4. Lower Ièderal courts a. liven lëwer theoretical limits b. If abolish all, state courts still hear D. Executive control over judiciary 1. Power to appoint, subject to Senate conlirmalion 2. Enforcement CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CL 3 CONGRESS A. Legislative in character & effect = Present. & Ilicameralism Cl JADI IA B. Excessive delegation not violated if Congress provides an intelligible principle. If not excessive delegation, call in rulemaking. Ml STRI 1’ l’A C. Rulemaking, ii appropriate & no interference with another branch Legislating MISTRETTA D. Once given discretion or power to exee., supervision or control = Legislating CI IADI IA E. Congressional discretion to give incidental power to other branches under App. CI. MORRISON II. EXECUTIVE A. President 1. C—in-C — military & foreign — limited domestic YOUNGSTOWN 2. No general power to solve national emergencies YOUNGSTOWN 3. Executive laws —- must have Congressional grant YOUNGSTOWN II. I ixecutive 0111cc — Appointment 1. Principal — President with Senate MORRISON 2. Interior — Congress vest in President, Judicial, Fleads of Dept. MORRISON 3. lnterhranch OK if appropriate MORRISON C. Executive Office - Removal I. At Will of President is rule Ml Yl l{S 2. Congress can’t remove executive officer — JR Cong. Removal BOWSI IER 3. Congress can list reasons if President ultimately removes FIUMP.FXFC. 4. II. Lx. — not pure exec. vs. quasi, hut, does limited removal of this office substantially interfere W/Pres. Running exec. MORRISON Ill. JUDICIAL A. Federal Judges generally hear cases — controversies, hut can have other service if appropriate MISTRIJTA B. Judiciary can make rules. lv. MARBURY & McCRADLF NO BRANCFI CAN PERFORM SUBSTANTIAL FUNCTIONS OF ANOTIIFR I3RANCI I USSC can’t act like executive — can’t order appointment of certain officers or order certain things. A. Congress can’t act like court — can’t prescribe decision or interfere in continuing jurisdiction. SEPARATION OF POWERS — A SECOND VIEW CL-3 If Control is legislative — A. If Legislative function, then CHADA problems if no Presentment and llicameralism in the function. 13. If’ I xecutive function, then 130WS1-II R problems because legislature can’t Control an executive function on general separation of powers nc iples even if the control satisfies Presentment and Ilicameralism. II. If Control is executive - A. If Legislative function, then the issue is excessive delegation of legislative power and the intelligible guidelines of Mistretta or separation of powers tinder llowsher. 13. If Executive function, Constitution should be satisfied and what is being done is either executing the laws, part of explicit or inherent executive power of’ rule nuiking. COMMERCE CLAUSE — CL 5 DEFINITION OF COMMERCE ITSELF A. Gibbons — Commerce = buying. sd line and transporting, not manulacturing or agriculture. Ii. Gibbons — “among’’ — points of origin and destination matter (two di IThrent states). don t break ourney into intrastate itrts. C. Jones and L — no labels; realistic assessment; national economy. II. REGULATION OF INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE A. Channels of interstate commerce. 13. Any aspect or instrumentality of transportation (e.g., plans. railroads, interstate highway) or communication (e.g., phone, mail) including links that are intrastate. C. CLOSE RELATION TO, OR SUBSTANTIAL AFFECT ON, INTERSTATE COMMERCE Substantial = Wickard — aggregation (hypothetical multiplier). 2. Affects quantity, qtiality, identity, etc. of goods or people moving in interstate commerce. Ill. PROHI BITION (‘?T?) A. Darby — Congress may prohibit the movement of anything in interstate commerce (regulate = prohibit) 13. In exercise of power to prohibit. Congress can control conditions of maiiulhcturer or regulate manulhcture, production. or possession as a means to the end of prohibition (Ames, Darby). IV. MODERN RETHINKING — LOPEZ. MORRISON. RAICH AND SEBELIUS A. No federal power on subsiantially alThcts te.st regarding non—economic matters in iraditional areas of stale concern. 13. Federal power more likely if challenged action is part of’a larger, concededly valid statutory scheme. C. Failure to enter the market is not an economic event that can he regulated. D. Are we too entrenched in the commerce clause precedents to change? V. OTHER CLAUSES IN CONSTITUTION AS LIMITS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS COMMERCE CLAUSE POWER (e.g., 1st A) I)ORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE CL 6 Discrimination against out of state (Protectionism) A. On face — per se invalid (Phil. V. NJ — garbage. hughes — minnows) 13. Purpose — invalid (I lood — Boston milk, NY source) — legislative history C. Effect — some say invalid (I hint — North Carolina apples) — usually if believe there is a purpose but no good evidence. If not, then balancing burden on interstate commerce v local interests or benefits (although some justices question whether balancing is still valid — Scalia in CTS). If advances a real or “important” state purpose, burden on interstates commerce proIably declared incidental unless special need for national unithrmity (Kassell — Iowa trucks). If burden on interstate commerce is incidental, stale statute upheld unless burden is clearly excessive in relation to putative local benelits. Question of degree (Pike — Arizona cantaloupes). II. Exceptions A. Health or Safety — usually quarantine 13. Market Participant —— State not as regulating, but either 1. State itself producing or running a business OR 2. State providing subsidies or other incentives to aid in-state business. Article IV, Section 2 - PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE A. Fundamental Right — Private workers or public projects 13. Not absolute — OK if substantial reason C. No market participant exception PREEMPTION AND COMMERCE CLAUSE REVIEW CL 7 PRIiMPTION (CONGRESSIONAL INTLNT) I. CON’! PL [I’L A. hxplieit B. Implicit 1. So pervasive 2. Dominate federal interest 3. Object and character of obligations [I. PARTIAL A. I xplic it 11. Implicit I. Compliance with both impossible 2. State regulatory provision is an obstacle to lëderal goal If lèderal statute A. Power — see handout CL5 for Commerce Clause basis and limils 10th 13. Amendment additional limitation I. Garcia — National League currently dead — generally applicable federal laws can he applied to state Governments. 2. NY v US — federal can’t commandeer state legisLature 3. Printz v US — cannot commandeer state executive 4. Alden v Maine — can’t commandeer state judicial system II. If state statute A. Preemption (with federal state) 13. Dormant Commerce Clause CL 6 (with no federal statute) ELEVEN AMENDEMENT, TAXING POWER ANI) SPENI)INC POWER CL S 11111 Amendment — Can’t sue a state in federal court unless: 1. Plaintiff= United States government OR 2. Cause of action grounded in statule bused on Amendment later than I OR 3. Defendant is politically
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception
    Michigan Law Review Volume 93 Issue 8 1995 The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception Benjamin C. Bair University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Commercial Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Government Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Benjamin C. Bair, The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2408 (1995). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol93/iss8/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception Benjamin C. Bair INTRODUCTION You are a state legislator. Your state's highway construction in­ dustry has seen better days, and unemployment is rising. Neverthe­ less, cities and counties in your state are hiring nonresident construction workers and buying cement and gravel from nonresi­ dent suppliers. Your constituents are upset that their tax dollars are going to outsiders, so you decide to draft a bill requiring all local governments1 in your state to fill at least half of their highway con­ struction positions with state residents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court and State Protectionism: Making Sense of the Dormant Commerce Clause
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 1986 The uprS eme Court and State Protectionism: Making Sense of the Dormant Commerce Clause Donald H. Regan University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/344 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Legislation Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Regan, Donald H. "The uS preme Court and State Protectionism: Making Sense of the Dormant Commerce Clause." Mich. L. Rev. 84 (1986): 1091-287. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SUPREME COURT AND STATE PROTECTIONISM: MAKING SENSE OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Donald H. Regan* for Eric Stein This essay was originally intended for the Michigan Law Review's recent Festschrift for Eric Stein. In the end, the essay was too long and too late. But even as a straggler, I wish to pay tribute to an admired and loved colleague. The Festschrift, marking Eric's retirement, appeared prematurely anyway. Eric has not retired, except in the myopic view of the bureaucrats, and shows no signs of doing so. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • The State-Self-Promotion Exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause Rule , 95 Iowa L
    Digital Commons @ Georgia Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2-1-2010 Where United Haulers Might Take Us: The tS ate- Self-Promotion Exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause Rule Dan T. Coenen UGA School of Law, [email protected] Repository Citation Dan T. Coenen, Where United Haulers Might Take Us: The State-Self-Promotion Exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause Rule , 95 Iowa L. Rev. 541 (2010), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/935 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. Where United Haulers Might Take Us: The Future of the State-Self-Promotion Exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause Rule Dan T. Coenen* ABSTRACT: Fourteen years ago, in C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a local government had unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce when it forced its citizens to purchase all waste-transfer services from a single local private supplier. In a recent decision, United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida- Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, the Court refused to extend the principle of Carbone to a law that required citizens to purchase these same services from a local government-operated facility. The Court thereby engrafted on the dormant Commerce Clause a new state-self- promotion exception, which receives its first extended treatment in this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Ither <I>Zschernig</I>?
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2001 W(h)ither Zschernig? Carlos Manuel Vázquez Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 12-083 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/986 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2094526 46 Vill. L. Rev. 1259-1324 (2001) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, International Law Commons, International Relations Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons 2001] W(H)ITHER ZSCHERNIG? CARLOS MANUEL VZQUEZ* WH EN the Court granted certiorari in what became Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council,' many expected a major constitutional ruling. Court watchers anticipated the Court's first foray into the dormant foreign affairs power since its decision in Zschernig v. Miller,2 the only case so far in which the Court has struck down a state statute on the ground that it inter- feres with the national government's exclusive power to conduct foreign relations.3 The plaintiffs in Crosby challenged Massachusetts' law subject- ing companies that do business with the military regime in Burma to cer- tain disadvantages in the government procurement process. 4 The district court struck down the law on the basis of the dormant foreign affairs power. 5 Although the Court of Appeals affirmed on two additional grounds, 6 most observers assumed that the Court had granted certiorari to address the dormant foreign affairs doctrine for the first time since Zschernig, and perhaps to repudiate it.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotting Constitutional Issues Dormant Commerce Clause
    9/26/2016 Commerce Clause and Spotting Constitutional Issues Dormant Commerce Clause • Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." • Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 • Grant of power to Congress; not an express limit on the power of the states Lisa Soronen, State and Local Legal Center Fred Messerer, California Legislative Counsel Dormant Commerce Clause Dormant Commerce Clause • Are in‐state and out‐of‐state economic interests treated differently? • “Negative converse” of the Commerce Clause • Example‐‐milk cases • Not in the text of the Constitution • Dean Milk v. Madison (1951)—Madison could not prohibit the sale of milk • Some people think it is made up (Justice Thomas) bottled more than five miles from the city center • First case: Reading Railroad v. Pennsylvania (1873) • Two tests • State legislation cannot improperly burden or discriminate against • Simple economic protection—virtually per se invalid interstate commerce • Balancing test (burden weighed against benefits) applies where “other legislative objectives are credibly advanced and there is no patent discrimination against interstate trade”—Pike v. Bruce Church (1970) 1 9/26/2016 Dormant Commerce Clause Dormant Commerce Clause • Facially neutral laws aren’t spared • Market Participant and California’s proposed initiative, Proposition 61 • So. Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)—Court applied balancing test to Arizona law • Prop 61 has two substantive provisions: prohibiting long trains in the state (balance state’s safety interest with burden • “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and insofar as may be on commerce) permissible under federal law, neither the State of California, nor any state • Market participation exception—state as a market participant may administrative agency or other state entity, including, but not limited to, the California Department of Health Care Services, shall enter into any prefer in‐state customers agreement with the manufacturer of any drug for the purchase of a • Reeves v.
    [Show full text]
  • On Tariffs V. Subsidies in Interstate Trade: a Legal and Economic Analysis
    Washington University Law Review Volume 74 Issue 4 January 1996 On Tariffs v. Subsidies in Interstate Trade: A Legal and Economic Analysis Christopher R. Drahozal University of Kansas School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Christopher R. Drahozal, On Tariffs v. Subsidies in Interstate Trade: A Legal and Economic Analysis, 74 WASH. U. L. Q. 1127 (1996). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol74/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ON TARIFFS V. SUBSIDIES IN INTERSTATE TRADE: A LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CHRISTOPHER R. DRAHOZAL* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1128 II. A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF TARIFFS V. SUBSIDIES UNDER THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE ..................................................... 1131 A. Overview ofDormant Commerce ClauseJurisprudence .............. 1131 B. Tariffs v. Subsidies Under the Dormant Commerce Clause.......... 1135 1. Tariffs ...................................... 1135 2. Subsidies .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION V. ASSOCIATION of AMERICAN RAILROADS Syllabus
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ET AL. v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 13–1080. Argued December 8, 2014—Decided March 9, 2015 In 1970, Congress created the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). Congress has given Amtrak priority to use track systems owned by the freight railroads for passenger rail travel, at rates agreed to by the parties or, in case of a dispute, set by the Surface Transportation Board. And in 2008, Congress gave Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) joint authority to issue “met- rics and standards” addressing the performance and scheduling of passenger railroad services, see §207(a), 122 Stat. 4907, including Amtrak’s on-time performance and train delays caused by host rail- roads. Respondent, the Association of American Railroads, sued peti- tioners—the Department of Transportation, the FRA, and two offi- cials—claiming that the metrics and standards must be invalidated because it is unconstitutional for Congress to allow and direct a pri- vate entity like Amtrak to exercise joint authority in their issuance.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Review ❖ Judicial Power Is Vested in One Supreme Court and Congress May Ordain and Establish Other Inferior Courts Under Article III
    I. INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE • The purpose of the Constitution is both simple and complex: ▪ Simple purposes: Limit the power of the government. Framework of the way that government can govern. ▪ Complex: National aspirations, political framework, gives powers to the government (does not just limit). Constitutions are used to resolve conflicting values. ❖ Judicial Review ❖ Judicial power is vested in one Supreme court and Congress may ordain and establish other inferior courts under Article III. ❖ Article III, section two defines the federal judicial power in terms of specified categories of “cases and controversies” ❖ Cases arising under the Constitution, treaties and laws of U.S, cases in which U.S. was a party, and controversies between two or more states (as well as citizens of different states, or a state and a citizen of another state). ❖ SCOUTS has original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, SCOUTS has appellate jurisdiction, subject to exceptions under such regulations as Congress makes. ❖ Article III is silent on judicial review. This was created by Marbury: ➢ Marbury v. Madison: Court’s authority to review executive branch actions and court’s authority to review legislation. ➢ Asking for a writ of mandamus (issue of an order for his commission), Marbury files his suit in the Supreme Court. Marbury argues that he is within the right jurisdiction, because Judiciary Act of 1789 gives Supreme court the authority to issue that writ. ➢ Does Marbury have right to commission? Do the laws afford Marbury a remedy against the Executive Branch? If so, can the Supreme court offer that remedy? Yes, yes, no (Supreme Court overturns Judiciary Act).
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Justice Miller's Clause: the Privileges Or Immunities of Citizens of the United States Internationally
    University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law Faculty Scholarship Francis King Carey School of Law Faculty 2008 Mr. Justice Miller's Clause: the Privileges or Immunities of Citizens of the United States Internationally David S. Bogen University of Maryland School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Human Rights Law Commons Digital Commons Citation Bogen, David S., "Mr. Justice Miller's Clause: the Privileges or Immunities of Citizens of the United States Internationally" (2008). Faculty Scholarship. 685. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs/685 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Francis King Carey School of Law Faculty at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MR. JUSTICE MILLER'S CLAUSE: THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONALLY DavidS. Bogen* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1052 II. Slaughter-House and Justice Miller. .................................................. 1056 A. Privileges or Immunities as a Tautology ................................... 1056 B. The Significance of United States Citizenship for Miller's Clause ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 06-666 Department of Revenue of Ky. V. Davis
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KENTUCKY ET AL. v. DAVIS ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY No. 06–666. Argued November 5, 2007—Decided May 19, 2008 Kentucky exempts from state income taxes interest on bonds issued by it or its political subdivisions but not on bonds issued by other States and their subdivisions. After paying state income tax on out-of-state municipal bonds, respondents sued petitioners (hereinafter Ken- tucky) for a refund, claiming that Kentucky’s differential tax imper- missibly discriminated against interstate commerce. The trial court ruled for Kentucky, relying in part on a “market-participation” excep- tion to the dormant Commerce Clause limit on state regulation. The State Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Kentucky’s scheme ran afoul of the Commerce Clause. Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 197 S. W. 3d 557, reversed and remanded. JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III–B, concluding that Kentucky’s differential tax scheme does not offend the Commerce Clause. Pp. 7–13, 20–28.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Justice Miller's Clause: the Privileges Or Immunities of Citizens of the United States Internationally
    MR. JUSTICE MILLER'S CLAUSE: THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONALLY DavidS. Bogen* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1052 II. Slaughter-House and Justice Miller. .................................................. 1056 A. Privileges or Immunities as a Tautology ................................... 1056 B. The Significance of United States Citizenship for Miller's Clause ............................................................................................ 1057 III. Privileges or Immunities of United States Citizenship with Respect to International Relations ................................................... 1059 A. Access to International Commerce ........................................... 1060 1. The Dormant Foreign Commerce Clause ........................... 1061 2. The Intersection of the Dormant Foreign Commerce Clause and Foreign Affairs: State Boycotts of Foreign Goods and the Market Participant Exception .................... 1065 3. The Foreign Affairs Power ................................................... 1069 B. Protection of Life, Liberty, and Property Abroad ................... 1071 1. The Privilege or Immunity of International Travel ........... 1072 2. Application of United States Law Abroad ......................... 1073 3. Securing Fundamental Rights from Foreign Nations ........ 1075 C. Treaty Rights ................................................................................ 1079
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutionality of State Laws Prohibiting Contractual Relations with Burma: Upholding Federalism's Purpose, the Jay A
    McGeorge Law Review Volume 29 | Issue 3 Article 5 1-1-1998 Constitutionality of State Laws Prohibiting Contractual Relations with Burma: Upholding Federalism's Purpose, The Jay A. Christofferson University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jay A. Christofferson, Constitutionality of State Laws Prohibiting Contractual Relations with Burma: Upholding Federalism's Purpose, The, 29 McGeorge L. Rev. 351 (1998). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol29/iss3/5 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Constitutionality of State Laws Prohibiting Contractual Relations with Burma: Upholding Federalism's Purpose Jay A. Christofferson" I. INTRODUCTION Does the power to control all activities that impact foreign countries, even if just tangentially, reside uniquely with the national government?' It once was repeated as mantra by jurists, "The states are unknown to foreign nations."2 Now state3 governments unsheepishly enact legislation which intends, or which sym- bolically manifests a desire, to have foreign nations understand that their practices do not go unnoticed and can serve as the impetus to spur states to act. Naturally, state officials attuned to the desires of their respective constituents are not interested in committing political hara-kiri by discounting popular causes.5 With this under- standing, state authorities have overtly restricted commercial intercourse,6 divested * J.D.
    [Show full text]