Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Creating a National Market in the United States Through the Dormant Commerce Clause?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Reach of Free Movement

  • 719 Accesses

Abstract

To compare the development of the internal market in the EU, the creation of the national market in the United States of America provides an excellent starting point. However, in order to fully comprehend the evolution of the latter, this chapter will demonstrate through a historical analysis, how such a market could materialise without an express provision about this in the Constitution of the United States of America. This will involve the examination of the drafting and early interpretation of the commerce clause in the first part. The second part will analyse the main decisions of the Supreme Court in which the negative or dormant commerce clause developed, focusing on the extent to which limitation placed on the states under this clause assisted in the creation of the national market. The last part will demonstrate that even though there is a strict scrutiny of state laws under the modern interpretation of the commerce clause, a worrying new trend seems to have emerged in recent Supreme Court decisions that allows for discriminatory laws to be imposed by the states against other states and their nationals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for instance Schütze 2009 or Barnard 2009.

  2. 2.

    Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, third clause.

  3. 3.

    Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8.

  4. 4.

    Balkin 2010, p. 5 and Amar 2005, p. 107.

  5. 5.

    Balkin 2010, p. 5 and Amar 2005, p. 107.

  6. 6.

    Balkin 2010, p. 15 and Amar 2005, p. 107.

  7. 7.

    Nelson and Pushaw 1999, pp. 15–16 and 20.

  8. 8.

    Nelson and Pushaw 1999, pp. 13–20.

  9. 9.

    Tushnet 2009, p. 162.

  10. 10.

    Tushnet 2009, p. 162.

  11. 11.

    Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 15.

  12. 12.

    Noyes 1906, p. 255; Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 17 and Pushaw 2012, p. 1710.

  13. 13.

    Barnett 2002, p. 1284. Nelson and Pushaw, however, claimed that these activities would be classified as ‘merchandize’ during this era. See Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 17.

  14. 14.

    Cooke 1910, p. 299.

  15. 15.

    Cooke 1910, p. 299.

  16. 16.

    Noyes 1906, pp. 256–257 and Barnett 2002, p. 1248.

  17. 17.

    Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 43.

  18. 18.

    Maggs 1998, p. 1198.

  19. 19.

    Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1887 and LeBoeuf 1994, pp. 595–596.

  20. 20.

    Eule 1982, p. 430 and Williams 2005, p. 162.

  21. 21.

    Noyes 1906, p. 254.

  22. 22.

    Noyes 1906, p. 254.

  23. 23.

    Eule 1982, p. 430 and Williams 2005, p. 162.

  24. 24.

    Denning 2005, p. 78.

  25. 25.

    Denning 2005, p. 79.

  26. 26.

    Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1887.

  27. 27.

    Noyes 1906, pp. 253–254.

  28. 28.

    Noyes 1906, p. 254; Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1888; Brogan 1999, p. 193 and Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 24. For a description of these measures in Virginia, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts. Rhode Island and South Carolina see Denning 2005, pp. 60–66.

  29. 29.

    Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1888.

  30. 30.

    Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1888 and LeBoeuf 1994, p. 597.

  31. 31.

    Eule 1982, p. 430; Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1889; Tribe 2000, vol. 1, p. 1044 and H P Hood & Sons, Inc v Du Mond, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets (1949) 336 YS 525, p. 533.

  32. 32.

    Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1888 and Denning 2005, p. 55.

  33. 33.

    Denning 2005, p. 52.

  34. 34.

    Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1891; Amar 2005, p. 254 and Brogan 1999, p. 194.

  35. 35.

    McGinley 1992, p. 412.

  36. 36.

    Abel 1940, p. 433.

  37. 37.

    Abel 1940, p. 433.

  38. 38.

    Abel 1940, p. 433.

  39. 39.

    Abel 1940, p. 433 and Amar 2005, p. 108.

  40. 40.

    Abel 1940, p. 434.

  41. 41.

    Abel 1940, p. 434.

  42. 42.

    Abel 1940, p. 434.

  43. 43.

    Pushaw 2012, p. 1719.

  44. 44.

    Pushaw 2012, p. 1719.

  45. 45.

    Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 41.

  46. 46.

    Sedler 2009, p. 1490.

  47. 47.

    Balkin 2010, p. 12.

  48. 48.

    Abel 1940, p. 443.

  49. 49.

    Larsen 2004, p. 845.

  50. 50.

    Eule 1982, p. 435. See also McGinley 1992, pp. 412–413 and Denning 2008, p. 481.

  51. 51.

    Abel 1940, p. 446.

  52. 52.

    Abel 1940, p. 446 and H P Hood & Sons, Inc v Du Mond, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets (1949), p. 534.

  53. 53.

    Denning 2008, p. 481.

  54. 54.

    Eule 1982, p. 435. See also Abel 1940, pp. 443–444.

  55. 55.

    Williams 2008, p. 423.

  56. 56.

    Article VI, para 2 of the Constitution of the United States states: ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.’

  57. 57.

    Abel 1940, pp. 483–485.

  58. 58.

    Abel 1940, pp. 483–485.

  59. 59.

    Abel 1940, p. 485.

  60. 60.

    Abel 1940, pp. 485–486.

  61. 61.

    Abel 1940, p. 486.

  62. 62.

    Abel 1940, p. 488. Abel also highlighted, for instance, statements of Butler, Lansing, King and Sherman in support of this ideology. See Abel 1940, pp. 486–488.

  63. 63.

    Abel 1940, p. 470.

  64. 64.

    Abel 1940, pp. 470–472.

  65. 65.

    Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 44.

  66. 66.

    Abel 1940, p. 490. Note the referral to ‘trade’ and not ‘commerce.’

  67. 67.

    Abel 1940, pp. 490–491 and Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 44.

  68. 68.

    Farrand 1937, vol. 2, p. 625 and Abel 1940, p. 492.

  69. 69.

    Boykin 2012, p. 94.

  70. 70.

    Abel 1940, p. 493; Williams 2008, pp. 423–424; McGinley 1992, p. 413; Larsen 2004, p. 846 and Denning 2008, p. 486.

  71. 71.

    Denning 2005, pp. 60–61.

  72. 72.

    Denning 2005, p. 61.

  73. 73.

    Barnett 2001, p. 121.

  74. 74.

    Eileen Hunt Botting, ‘Protofeminist Responses to the Federalist-Antifederalist Debate’, The Federalist Papers (Yale University Press 2009) 533.

  75. 75.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 6, p. 26 and No. 7, pp. 33–34.

  76. 76.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 22, pp. 107–108.

  77. 77.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 32, pp. 155–156.

  78. 78.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 6, p. 31.

  79. 79.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 6, p. 28.

  80. 80.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 11, p. 54 and No. 12, pp. 73–74 and Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 41.

  81. 81.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 11 54 and No. 22 107; Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 41.

  82. 82.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 45, p. 238.

  83. 83.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 14, p. 67.

  84. 84.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 32, pp. 155–156.

  85. 85.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 32, p. 156.

  86. 86.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 32, p. 156.

  87. 87.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 32, p. 156.

  88. 88.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 32, p. 158.

  89. 89.

    Hamilton and Madison 2009, No. 32, p. 158.

  90. 90.

    Letter of February 13, 1829, to J.C. Cabell, Farrand 1937, vol. 3, p. 478—as referred to from Abel 1940, p. 469. See also Tribe 2000, pp. 1044–45 and Konar-Steenberg 2009, p. 962.

  91. 91.

    Eule 1982, p. 431 and McGinley 1992, p. 413.

  92. 92.

    Nelson and Pushaw 1999, pp. 44–46.

  93. 93.

    Brant 1965, p. 39.

  94. 94.

    Nelson and Pushaw 1999, p. 36 and Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1894.

  95. 95.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1.

  96. 96.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 2–4.

  97. 97.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 2–4.

  98. 98.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 4–8.

  99. 99.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 186.

  100. 100.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 189–190 and 193–194.

  101. 101.

    Frankfurter 1964, p. 42. Barnett also highlighted that the future Chief Justice Marshall also advocated for the same interpretation of commerce during the ratifying convention in Virginia. See Barnett 2001, p. 123.

  102. 102.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 189–190 and 193–194.

  103. 103.

    Tushnet 2009, pp. 162–163.

  104. 104.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 199–200 and Corwin 1933, p. 484.

  105. 105.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 209–210.

  106. 106.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 209–210.

  107. 107.

    Corwin 1933, p. 480.

  108. 108.

    Chemerinsky 2013, p. 462.

  109. 109.

    Corwin 1933, p. 481.

  110. 110.

    Letter of February 13, 1829, to J.C. Cabell, Farrand 1937, vol. 3, p. 478—as referred to from Abel 1940, p. 469. See also Tribe 2000, pp. 1044–45 and Konar-Steenberg 2009, p. 962.

  111. 111.

    Denning 2015, para 6.02.

  112. 112.

    Frankfurter 1964, p. 18.

  113. 113.

    Willson v Black Bird Creek Marsh Co (1829) 27 US (2 Pet) 245.

  114. 114.

    Willson v Black Bird Creek Marsh Co (1829) 27 US (2 Pet) 245, 252, Frankfurter 1964, p. 28 and Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1920.

  115. 115.

    Felmly 2003, p. 472.

  116. 116.

    Chapin 1991, p. 165.

  117. 117.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1. See also Felmly 2003, p. 472 about the debates when this doctrine was ‘formally adopted.’

  118. 118.

    Denning 2008, p. 432; Lang 2012, p. 79 and McGinley 1992, p. 413.

  119. 119.

    The Licence Cases (1847) 46 US 504, p. 579, Denning 2008, p. 434 and Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1930.

  120. 120.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1.

  121. 121.

    Frankfurter 1964, p. 51; Denning 2008, p. 432.

  122. 122.

    The Passenger Cases (1849) 7 How 283, pp. 474 and 493 as referred to from Frankfurter 1964, p. 59.

  123. 123.

    Frankfurter 1964, p. 50.

  124. 124.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1.

  125. 125.

    McGinley 1992, p. 413.

  126. 126.

    The Licence Cases (1847) 46 US 504.

  127. 127.

    McGinley 1992, p. 413.

  128. 128.

    Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1930 and Denning 2008, p. 432.

  129. 129.

    McGinley 1992, p. 413.

  130. 130.

    Tribe 2000, pp. 1046–1047.

  131. 131.

    McGinley 1992, p. 413.

  132. 132.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299.

  133. 133.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, pp. 300–301.

  134. 134.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, p. 315.

  135. 135.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, p. 316.

  136. 136.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, p. 318.

  137. 137.

    Ibid.; Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1924.

  138. 138.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, Tribe 2000, pp. 1048–1049 and McGinley 1992, p. 414.

  139. 139.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, Tribe 2000, pp. 1048–1049.

  140. 140.

    Schütze 2009, p. 91.

  141. 141.

    Felmly 2003, p. 473.

  142. 142.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, pp. 317–318 and 323–324.

  143. 143.

    Schütze 2009, p. 91 and Lang 2012, pp. 80–81.

  144. 144.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299.

  145. 145.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, p. 319.

  146. 146.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1047 and McGinley 1992, p. 414.

  147. 147.

    Denning 2008, p. 436.

  148. 148.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299.

  149. 149.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299.

  150. 150.

    Kidd v Pearson (1888) 128 US 1.

  151. 151.

    Williams 2007, p. 1867.

  152. 152.

    Williams 2007, p. 1867.

  153. 153.

    Kidd v Pearson (1888) 128 US 1, p. 20.

  154. 154.

    Kidd v Pearson (1888) 128 US 1, p. 20.

  155. 155.

    Davis 1907, p. 215.

  156. 156.

    For the application of this standpoint see for instance Morgan's Louisiana & TR & SS Co v Louisiana Board of Health (1886) 118 US 455, Pound v Turck (1877) 95 US (5 Otto) 459 or Hannibal & St J R Co v Husen (1878) 95 US (5 Otto) 465, as referred to from Denning (2015) para 6.04.

  157. 157.

    Williams 2007, p. 1868.

  158. 158.

    Williams 2007, p. 1868.

  159. 159.

    Kidd v Pearson (1888) 128 US 1, p. 25.

  160. 160.

    Denning 2008, p. 437.

  161. 161.

    Denning 2008, p. 438.

  162. 162.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, pp. 317–319.

  163. 163.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299, pp. 317–319.

  164. 164.

    Smith v Alabama (1888) 124 US 465.

  165. 165.

    Chemerinsky 2013, p. 464.

  166. 166.

    Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company v Illinois (1886) 118 US 557.

  167. 167.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1048 and Chemerinsky 2013, p. 464.

  168. 168.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1049; Denning 2008, pp. 438–439 and Cushman 2000, pp. 1111–1114.

  169. 169.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1049. See the cases Accord, Erb v Morasch (1900) 177 US 584; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v Arkansas (1911) 219 US 453.

  170. 170.

    Cushman 2000, pp. 1116–1117.

  171. 171.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1049.

  172. 172.

    Seaboard Air Line Railway v Blackwell (1917) 244 US 310.

  173. 173.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1049.

  174. 174.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299.

  175. 175.

    Williams 2007, pp. 1869 and 1872. Two such subject matters of these cases were the taxation of out-of-state goods and racial segregation on modes of transportation, see ibid., 1874–1876.

  176. 176.

    Justice Holmes, for instance, in Towne v Eisner (1918) 245 US 418, 438. stated: ‘a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.’

  177. 177.

    Powell 1928, p. 491.

  178. 178.

    Felmly 2003, p. 475 and Regan 1986, p. 1094.

  179. 179.

    Regan 1986, p. 1094. See DiSanto v Pennsylvania (1927) 273 US 34; Southern Pacific Co v Arizona ex rel Sullivan, Attorney General (1945) 325 US 761.

  180. 180.

    McGinley 1992, p. 414.

  181. 181.

    Day 2003, pp. 46–47; Friedman and Deacon 2011, p. 1926; Felmly 2003, p. 47 and Larsen 2004, p. 850.

  182. 182.

    Larsen 2004, p. 844.

  183. 183.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1059. Larsen also highlighted that the definition of discrimination ‘remarkabl[y]’ differs for the dormant commerce clause from the other constitutional doctrine. Larsen 2004, pp. 844 and 854.

  184. 184.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1059; Larsen 2004, p. 853 and Denning 2008, p. 496.

  185. 185.

    Larsen 2004, p. 854.

  186. 186.

    Larsen 2004, p. 854.

  187. 187.

    Dean Milk Co v City of Madison (1951) 340 US 349.

  188. 188.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1083 and Larsen 2004, p. 863.

  189. 189.

    Despite the act showing clear discriminatory characteristics, it was, surprisingly, still examined under the second tier test of the modern approach. See Larsen 2004, p. 863.

  190. 190.

    Philadelphia v New Jersey (1978) 437 US 617.

  191. 191.

    Slattery 2008, p. 1269 and Thompson 2004, p. 226.

  192. 192.

    Petragnani 1994, p. 1218.

  193. 193.

    Philadelphia v New Jersey (1978) 437 US 617, 626–627 and Farber 1986, p. 397.

  194. 194.

    Baldwin, Commissioner of Agriculture & Markets, et al. v GAF Seelig Inc (1949) 294 US 511, 523.

  195. 195.

    Collins 1988, p. 97.

  196. 196.

    Collins 1988, p. 97.

  197. 197.

    Chemical Waste Management, Inc v Hunt (1992) 504 US 334.

  198. 198.

    Larsen 2004, p. 862 and Tribe 2000, pp. 1065–1066.

  199. 199.

    Maine v Taylor (1986) 477 US 131.

  200. 200.

    Maine v Taylor (1986) 477 US 131 as referred to from Mank 2009, p. 11.

  201. 201.

    Larsen 2004, p. 854.

  202. 202.

    West Lynn Creamery, Inc v Healy (1994) 512 US 186.

  203. 203.

    Larsen 2004, pp. 855–856.

  204. 204.

    Larsen 2004, p. 855.

  205. 205.

    Konar-Steenberg 2009, p. 968.

  206. 206.

    Drahozal 1999, p. 244.

  207. 207.

    C & A Carbone, Inc v Town of Clarkstown (1994) 511 US 383.

  208. 208.

    Larsen 2004, p. 856.

  209. 209.

    Larsen 2004, p. 856.

  210. 210.

    Larsen 2004, p. 854.

  211. 211.

    Larsen 2004, p. 859.

  212. 212.

    Kassel v Consolidated Freightways Corp (1981) 450 US 662.

  213. 213.

    Larsen 2004, p. 859.

  214. 214.

    Larsen 2004, p. 859.

  215. 215.

    Larsen 2004, p. 860.

  216. 216.

    Larsen 2004, p. 860. See also Tribe 2000, pp. 1072–1073.

  217. 217.

    McGreal 1998, p. 1195.

  218. 218.

    McGreal 1998, p. 1195. This position was also previously identified by Regan 1986, p. 1096.

  219. 219.

    Parker v Brown (1943) 317 US 341.

  220. 220.

    Regan 1986, p. 1096.

  221. 221.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1057.

  222. 222.

    Balkin 2010, p. 17 and Regan 1986, p. 1114—also making a reference to Kitch.

  223. 223.

    Abel 1940, p. 433.

  224. 224.

    Baker and Konar-Steenberg 2006, p. 30.

  225. 225.

    McCulloch v Maryland (1819) 17 US (4 Wheat) 316.

  226. 226.

    McCulloch v Maryland (1819) 17 US (4 Wheat) 316, pp. 429–430.

  227. 227.

    H P Hood & Sons, Inc v Du Mond, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets (1949) 336 US 525.

  228. 228.

    Farber 1986, p. 396 and Chemerinsky 2013, p. 460.

  229. 229.

    McCulloch v Maryland 17 US (4 Wheat) 316 (1819).

  230. 230.

    McCulloch v Maryland 17 US (4 Wheat) 316 (1819), pp. 429–430.

  231. 231.

    Farber 1986, p. 396 and Regan 1986, p. 1092.

  232. 232.

    Commonwealth Edison Co v Montana (1981) 101 SCt 2946.

  233. 233.

    O’Fallon 1982, p. 416.

  234. 234.

    Baldwin, Commissioner of Agriculture & Markets, et al. v GAF Seelig Inc (1949) 294 US 511.

  235. 235.

    H P Hood & Sons, Inc v Du Mond, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets (1949) 336 US 525.

  236. 236.

    McGreal 1998, p. 1222.

  237. 237.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1058.

  238. 238.

    H P Hood & Sons, Inc v Du Mond, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets (1949) 336 US 525, 539.

  239. 239.

    Philadelphia v New Jersey (1978) 437 US 617.

  240. 240.

    Philadelphia v New Jersey (1978) 437 US 617, p. 624 and Felmly 2003, p. 478.

  241. 241.

    Philadelphia v New Jersey (1978) 437 US 617 and Lang 2012, p. 81.

  242. 242.

    New Energy Co of Indiana v Limbach (1988) 486 US 269.

  243. 243.

    New Energy Co of Indiana v Limbach (1988) 486 US 269, p. 274.

  244. 244.

    Williams 2008, p. 426.

  245. 245.

    Williams 2008, p. 426.

  246. 246.

    Williams 2008, p. 426.

  247. 247.

    Williams 2008, p. 426.

  248. 248.

    DiSanto v Pennsylvania (1927) 273 US 34 as referred to from Denning 2008, pp. 443–444.

  249. 249.

    Denning 2008, p. 444.

  250. 250.

    Denning 2008, p. 444.

  251. 251.

    Denning 2008, p. 444.

  252. 252.

    South Carolina State Highway Department v Barnwell Brothers 303 US 177 (1938), as referred to from Denning 2008, p. 445.

  253. 253.

    Denning 2008, p. 445.

  254. 254.

    Denning 2008, p. 445.

  255. 255.

    Denning 2008, p. 445 and Dowling 1940, p. 9.

  256. 256.

    Twyman 1995, p. 391.

  257. 257.

    Twyman 1995, pp. 391–392.

  258. 258.

    Southern Pacific Co v Arizona 625 US 761 (1945), as referred to from Denning 2008, p. 446.

  259. 259.

    Denning 2008, p. 446.

  260. 260.

    Denning 2008, p. 446.

  261. 261.

    Denning 2008, p. 446.

  262. 262.

    Twyman 1995, pp. 392–393.

  263. 263.

    Pike v Bruce Church Inc (1970) 397 US 137.

  264. 264.

    Zelinsky 2010, 414.

  265. 265.

    Day 2003, p. 50.

  266. 266.

    Day 2003, p. 50.

  267. 267.

    O’Fallon 1982, p. 407.

  268. 268.

    Day 2003, p. 50.

  269. 269.

    Pike v Bruce Church Inc (1970) 397 US 137.

  270. 270.

    Pike v Bruce Church Inc (1970) 397 US 137.

  271. 271.

    McGinley 1992, p. 146; O’Fallon 1982, p. 407 and Denning 2008, p. 447.

  272. 272.

    Pike v Bruce Church Inc (1970) 397 US 137.

  273. 273.

    Dean Milk Co v City of Madison (1951) 340 US 349.

  274. 274.

    Gerhart 2011, p. 373.

  275. 275.

    Gerhart 2011, p. 373.

  276. 276.

    Gerhart 2011, p. 373.

  277. 277.

    Pike v Bruce Church Inc (1970) 397 US 137.

  278. 278.

    Chemical Waste Management, Inc v Hunt (1992) 504 US 334.

  279. 279.

    Cantrell 2009, p. 159.

  280. 280.

    Maine v Taylor (1986) 477 US 131.

  281. 281.

    Gerhart 2011, p. 374.

  282. 282.

    Williams 2007, p. 1851 and O’Fallon 1982, p. 396.

  283. 283.

    Williams and Denning 2009, p. 294.

  284. 284.

    Hughes v Alexandria Scrap Corp 426 US 794 (1976).

  285. 285.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1088.

  286. 286.

    Tribe 2000, p. 1088.

  287. 287.

    One such case was Reeves, Inc v Stake 447 US 429 (1980) and see also Tribe 2000, p. 1089.

  288. 288.

    Williams and Denning 2009, p. 295.

  289. 289.

    Williams and Denning 2009, p. 295.

  290. 290.

    South-Central Timber Development v Wunnicke 467 US 82 (1984).

  291. 291.

    Williams and Denning 2009, p. 295.

  292. 292.

    Williams and Denning 2009, p. 295.

  293. 293.

    Williams and Denning 2009, p. 296.

  294. 294.

    New Energy Co of Indiana v Limbach (1988) 486 US 269.

  295. 295.

    Williams and Denning 2009, p. 296.

  296. 296.

    Williams and Denning 2009, p. 296 and Tribe 2000, p. 1093.

  297. 297.

    McBurney v Young (2013) 569 US.

  298. 298.

    Kidd v Pearson (1888) 128 US 1.

  299. 299.

    McBurney v Young (2013) 569 US.

  300. 300.

    McBurney v Young (2013) 569 US.

  301. 301.

    McBurney v Young (2013) 569 US.

  302. 302.

    McBurney v Young (2013) 569 US, p. 13.

  303. 303.

    McBurney v Young (2013) 569 US, pp. 13–14.

  304. 304.

    McBurney v Young (2013) 569 US, p. 13.

  305. 305.

    McBurney v Young (2013) 569 US, p. 14.

  306. 306.

    Prudential Insurance Co v Benjamin 328 US 408 (1946).

  307. 307.

    Williams 2005, p. 157.

  308. 308.

    Wilson Act 27 USC § 121 (2000) and Williams 2005, p. 155.

  309. 309.

    Williams 2005, pp. 155–156.

  310. 310.

    Williams 2005, p. 155.

  311. 311.

    United Haulers Association, Inc, et al. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority et al. (2007) 550 US.

  312. 312.

    United Haulers Association, Inc, et al. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority et al. (2007) 550 US (Chief Justice Roberts), p. 1.

  313. 313.

    General Motors Corp v Tracy 519 US 278, 298 (1997).

  314. 314.

    United Haulers Association, Inc, et al. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority et al. (2007) 550 US (Chief Justice Roberts), p. 10.

  315. 315.

    United Haulers Association, Inc, et al. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority et al. (2007) 550 US, p. 12.

  316. 316.

    United Haulers Association, Inc, et al. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority et al. (2007) 550 US, p. 13.

  317. 317.

    United Haulers Association, Inc, et al. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority et al. (2007) 550 US, pp. 14–15.

  318. 318.

    United Haulers Association, Inc, et al. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority et al. (2007) 550 US, p. 12.

  319. 319.

    United Haulers Association, Inc, et al. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority et al. (2007) 550 US, pp. 12–13.

  320. 320.

    C & A Carbone, Inc v Town of Clarkstown (1994) 511 US 383.

  321. 321.

    Coenen 2010, p. 544 and Denning (n. 49) 649.

  322. 322.

    Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) 469 US 528 and Denning 2008, p. 471 for a further discussion on the topic.

  323. 323.

    Department of Revenue v Davis (2008) 553 US.

  324. 324.

    Williams and Denning 2009, p. 260.

  325. 325.

    Department of Revenue v Davis (2008) 553 US (Justice Souter), p. 11 and Coenen 2010, p. 560.

  326. 326.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1, pp. 189–190 and 193–194.

  327. 327.

    Gibbons v Ogden (1824) 22 US 1.

  328. 328.

    McGinley 1992, p. 413.

  329. 329.

    Aaron B Cooley v The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children (1851) 53 US (12 How) 299.

  330. 330.

    Kidd v Pearson (1888) 128 US 1.

References

  • Abel AS (1940) The Commerce Clause in the Constitutional Convention and in Contemporary Comment. Minnesota Law Review 25:432–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Amar AR (2005) America’s Constitution: A Biography. Random House

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker J, Konar-Steenberg M (2006) “Drawn from Local Knowledge… And Conformed to Local Wants”: Zoning and Incremental Reform of Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 38:1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Balkin JM (2010) Commerce. Michigan Law Review 109:1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard C (2009) Restricting Restrictions: Lessons for the EU from the US? Cambridge Law Journal 68:575–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett RE (2001) The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause. The University of Chicago Law Review 68:101–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett RE (2002) Is the Rehnquist Court an Activist Court - The Commerce Clause Cases. University of Colorado Law Review 73:1275–1290

    Google Scholar 

  • Botting EH (2009) Protofeminist Responses to the Federalist-Antifederalist Debate. In: Hamilton A, Jay J, Madison J (1787–1788) The Federalist Papers (Ian Shapiro edn). Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Boykin S (2012) The Commerce Clause, American Democracy, and the Affordable Care Act. The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 10:89–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Brant I (1965) The Bill of Rights: Its Origin and Meaning. Bobbs-Merrill

    Google Scholar 

  • Brogan H (1999) The Penguin History of the United States of America. Penguin Group

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell WJ (2009) Cleaning Up the Mess: United Haulers, the Dormant Commerce Clause and Transaction Costs Economics. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 34:149–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapin R (1991) Chadha, Garcia and the Dormant Commerce Clause Limitation on State Authority to Regulate. The Urban Lawyer 23:163–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemerinsky E (2013) Constitutional Law. Wolters-Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Coenen DT (2010) Where United Haulers Might Take Us: The Future of the State-Self-Promotion Exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause Rule. Iowa Law Review 95:541–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins R (1988) Economic Union as a Constitutional Value. New York University Law Review 63:43–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke FH (1910) The Pseudo-Doctrine of the Exclusiveness of the Power of Congress to Regulate Commerce. Yale Law Journal 20:297–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Corwin ES (1933) Congress’s Power to Prohibit Commerce a Crucial Constitutional Issue. Corrnell Law Quarterly 18:477–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushman B (2000) Formalism and Realism in Commerce Clause Jurisprudence. The University of Chicago Law Review 97:1089–1150

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis JW (1907) The Growth of the Commerce Clause. The American Lawyer 15:213–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Day D (2003) Revisiting Pike: The Origins of the Nondiscrimination Tier of the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine. Hamline Law Review 27:45–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning BP (2005) Confederation-Era Discrimination against Interstate Commerce and the Legitimacy of the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine. Kentucky Law Journal 94:37–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning BP (2008) Reconstructing The Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine. William and Mary Law Review 50:417–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning BP (2015) Bittker on Regulation Interstate & Foreign Commerce. Aspen Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling NT (1940) Interstate Commerce and State Power. Virginia Law Review 27:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahozal CR (1999) Preserving the American Common Market: State and Local Governments in the United States Supreme Court. Supreme Court Economic Review 7:233–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Eule JN (1982) Laying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Rest. Yale Law Journal 91:425–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber DA (1986) State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Const Comment 3:395–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrand M (ed) (1937) The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Felmly PC (2003) Beyond the Reach of States: The Dormant Commerce Clause, Extraterritorial State Regulation, and the Concerns of Federalism. Maine Law Review 55:467–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurter F (1964) The Commerce Clause Under Marshall, Taney and Waite. Quadrangle Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman B, Deacon DT (2011) A Course Unbroken: The Constitutional Legitimacy of the Dormant Commerce Clause. Virginia Law Review 97:1877–1938

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhart AQ (2011) Dormant Commerce Clause Implications of Pennsylvania Dairy Regulations. Penn State Environmental Law Review 19:361–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton A, Jay J, Madison J (2009) The Federalist Papers (Ian Shapiro edn). Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Konar-Steenberg M (2009) One Nation or One Market? Liberals, Conservatives, and the Misunderstanding of HP Hood & Sons v Dumond. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 11:957–983

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang A (2012) The Marshall Doctrine, The Taney Doctrine and Calhounian Federalism. The Dartmouth Law Journal 10:76–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen JL (2004) Discrimination in the Dormant Commerce Clause. South Dakota Law Review 49:844–866

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBoeuf J (1994) The Economics of Federalism and the Proper Scope of the Federal Commerce Power. San Diego Law Review 31:555–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggs GE (1998) Translating Federalism: A Textualist Reaction. The George Washington Law Review 66:1198–1205

    Google Scholar 

  • Mank B (2009) The Supreme Court’s New Public-Private Distinction under the Dormant Commerce Clause: Avoiding the Traditional versus Nontraditional Classification Trap. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 37:1–64

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinley PC (1992) Trashing the Constitution: Judicial Activism, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Federalism Mantra. Oregon Law Review 71:409–456

    Google Scholar 

  • McGreal PE (1998) The Flawed Economics of the Dormant Commerce Clause. William and Mary Law Review 39:1191–1287

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson GS, Pushaw RJ (1999) Rethinking the Commerce Clause: Applying First Principles to Uphold Federal Commercial Regulations but Preserve State Control Over Social Issues. Iowa Law Review 85:1–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyes WC (1906) Development of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Yale Law Journal 16:253–258

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Fallon JM (1982) The Commerce Clause: A Theoretical Comment. Oregon Law Review 61:395–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Petragnani AM (1994) The Dormant Commerce Clause on Its Last Leg. Albany Law Review 57:1215–1253

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell TR (1928) Current Conflicts between the Commerce Clause and State Police Power 1922–1927. Minnesota Law Review 12:470 - 491

    Google Scholar 

  • Pushaw RJ (2012) Obamacare and the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause: Identifying Historical Limits on Congress’s Powers. University of Illinois Law Review 2012:1703–1754

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan DH (1986) The Supreme Court and State Protectionism: Making Sense of the Dormant Commerce Clause. Michigan Law Review 84:1091–1287

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2009) From Dual to Cooperative Federalism: The Changing Structure of European Law. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedler RA (2009) The Constitution and the American Federal System. Wayne Law Review 55:1487–1544

    Google Scholar 

  • Slattery TJ (2008) The Dormant Commerce Clause: Adopting a New Standard and a Return to Principle. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 17:1243–1280

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson AD (2004) Public Health, Environmental Protection, and the Dormant Commerce Clause: Maintaining State Sovereignty in the Federalist Structure. Case Western Reserve Law Review 55:213–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribe LH (2000) American Constitutional Law. Foundation Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet M (2009) The Constitution of the United States of America: A Contextual Analysis. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Twyman WFJ (1995) Beyond Purpose: Addressing State Discrimination in Interstate Commerce. South Carolina Law Review 46:381–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams NR (2005) Why Congress May Not “Overrule” the Dormant Commerce Clause. UCLA Law Review 53:153–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams NR (2007) The Commerce Clause and the Myth of Dual Federalism. UCLA Law Review 54:1847–1929

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams NR (2008) The Foundations of the American Common Market. Notre Dame Law Review 84:409–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams NR, Denning BP (2009) The “New Protectionism” and the American Common Market. Notre Dame Law Review 85:247–312

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to this chapter has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)—ERC Grant Agreement n. 312304. The author wishes to thank Professor Robert Schütze and the participants of ‘The Constitutional Implications of Free Movement’ conference for their helpful comments on this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Durham Law School, Durham University, Palatine Centre, Stockton Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK

    Eszter Belteki

Authors
  1. Eszter Belteki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eszter Belteki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Mads Andenas

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Tarjei Bekkedal

  3. Faculty of Public Management, Law and Safety, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Luca Pantaleo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Belteki, E. (2017). Creating a National Market in the United States Through the Dormant Commerce Clause?. In: Andenas, M., Bekkedal, T., Pantaleo, L. (eds) The Reach of Free Movement. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-195-1_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-195-1_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-194-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-195-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation