MAINE v. TAYLOR

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
85-62
Appellee 
Taylor
Appellant 
Maine
Advocates
(Argued the cause for appellee Taylor)
(Argued the cause for the appellant)
(Argued the cause for the United States, as appellee under the Court's Rule 10.4, in support of appellant)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

In order to protect its fisheries from parasites and non-native species, the state of Maine prohibited the importation of live baitfish. Robert J. Taylor, the owner of a bait business, violated the law and was prosecuted by Maine authorities.

Question 

Did the Maine law unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce, violating the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion 
Decision: 8 votes for Maine, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

No. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the limitation imposed by the Commerce Clause on state regulatory power was not absolute and that the States "retain[ed] authority under their general police powers to regulate matters of 'legitimate local concern.'" The Court found that Maine's ban on the importation oflive baitfish served a legitimate local purpose that could not adequately be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives. The Court argued that the ban was not a simple case of "arbitrary discrimination against interstate commerce."

Cite this Page
MAINE v. TAYLOR. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 21 September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_62>.
MAINE v. TAYLOR, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_62 (last visited September 21, 2014).
"MAINE v. TAYLOR," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed September 21, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_62.