If substantial burden on i-c. truly greater than local benefit of the law, then Congress would have affirmatively exercised its power to preempt the law w/ legislation Balancing local benefit against i.c. burden requires SC to make policy judgments SC ill-suited to make (Thomas dissent, Camp Newfoundland/Owatonna, Inc.) Textual - No basis in text (Thomas dissent, Camp Newfoundland/Owatonna, Inc.) Dean Milk Statute at issue: Madison, WI ordinance - Type 1(A) 1. Makes in unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized in less it has been processed & bottled in Madison pasteurization plant 2. Prohibits sale of milk, or importation/receipt/storage of milk for sale, in Madison unless it’s from supplier that had a permit issued by Madison officials City of Madison: only permitting milk processed locally advances legit. local interest in health & safety Analysis Reg. excludes from distirb. In Madison milk produced & pasteurized in neighboring states Reg. protects local milk industry against out-of-state competition implicitly, discriminates against non-Madison Reg. but clearly commerce, which it can’t do if reasonable non-discrim. alternatives exist to conserve legit. local interests [1(b) ] Held: Statute invalid protectionist measure City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey State statute at issue: NJ statute prohibited flow of waste into NJ from other states Type 1-A facially discriminatory explicitly discriminates against – – trash Could Cong. have regulated flow of waste pursuant to i-c. power? Yes statute literally regulated flow of something from 1 to – another- falls squarely within Congress’s i-c. power There’s i-c. market for the trash (by private landfills) Compare to New York nuclear waste disposal case Held: Statute per se unconstitutional (as Type 1 statute) NJ contended: statute’s goal is to protect public safety, not to discriminate against out-of-state trash Analysis Statute is protectionist measure that discriminates facially, explicitly in text of statute, against trash goal of the statute doesn’t – matter;
If substantial burden on i-c. truly greater than local benefit of the law, then Congress would have affirmatively exercised its power to preempt the law w/ legislation Balancing local benefit against i.c. burden requires SC to make policy judgments SC ill-suited to make (Thomas dissent, Camp Newfoundland/Owatonna, Inc.) Textual - No basis in text (Thomas dissent, Camp Newfoundland/Owatonna, Inc.) Dean Milk Statute at issue: Madison, WI ordinance - Type 1(A) 1. Makes in unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized in less it has been processed & bottled in Madison pasteurization plant 2. Prohibits sale of milk, or importation/receipt/storage of milk for sale, in Madison unless it’s from supplier that had a permit issued by Madison officials City of Madison: only permitting milk processed locally advances legit. local interest in health & safety Analysis Reg. excludes from distirb. In Madison milk produced & pasteurized in neighboring states Reg. protects local milk industry against out-of-state competition Reg. implicitly, but clearly discriminates against non-Madison commerce, which it can’t do if reasonable non-discrim. alternatives exist to conserve legit. local interests [1(b) ] Held: Statute invalid protectionist measure City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey State statute at issue: NJ statute prohibited flow of waste into NJ from other states Type 1-A – facially discriminatory – explicitly discriminates against trash Could Cong. have regulated flow of waste pursuant to i-c. power? Yes – statute literally regulated flow of something from 1 to another- falls squarely within Congress’s i-c. power There’s i-c. market for the trash (by private landfills) Compare to New York nuclear waste disposal case Held: Statute per se unconstitutional (as Type 1 statute) NJ contended: statute’s goal is to protect public safety, not to discriminate against out-of-state trash Analysis Statute is protectionist measure that discriminates facially, explicitly in text of statute, against trash – goal of the statute doesn’t matter;