The Oyez Project: Economic Activity Issues - State Regulation of Business Arguments

A & P Tea Co. v. Cottrell - Oral Argument

Mon, 01 Dec 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus - Oral Argument

Tue, 25 Apr 1978 12:00:00 -0500

In 1974, Minnesota adopted legislation which required private employers to pay a fee if they terminated employee pension plans or if they moved their offices from the state, leaving insufficient funds to cover pensions for ten-year employees. This law affected Allied Structural Steel as the company began closing offices in Minnesota. Even though the employees affected by the closing were not entitled to pensions under the terms of their employment with the company, according to the Minnesota law, they were. The company was ordered to pay approximately $185,000 to comply with the statute's provisions.

American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n - Oral Argument

Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:00:00 -0500

Michigan law required every truck engaged in intrastate commercial hauling to pay a flat $100 annual fee. Interstate trucking companies asked Michigan courts to invalidate the fee, claiming the flat fee discriminated against interstate carriers and imposed an unconstitutional burden on interstate trade (in violation of the "dormant" commerce clause). They pointed to the fact that trucks carrying both interstate and intrastate loads engaged in intrastate business less than trucks that only haul within Michigan. State courts refused to invalidate the fee.

Brown-Forman Distillers v. N. Y. Liquor Auth. - Oral Argument

Mon, 03 Mar 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town Of Clarkstown, New York - Oral Argument

Tue, 07 Dec 1993 12:00:00 -0500

A New York town, Clarkstown, allowed a contractor to construct and operate a waste processing plant within town limits. The revenue from the plant would help compensate the contractor. Clarkstown promised that the plant would receive 120,000 tons of solid waste each year, and permitted the contractor to charge an $81 "tipping fee" for each ton received. To meet the 120,000 ton quota, Clarkstown adopted a "flow control ordinance." The ordinance required that all solid waste flowing into and out of the town pass through the new plant. C & A Carbone, Inc. operated a similar plant within the town. To avoid paying the $81 fee, Carbone trucked processed waste directly to an Indiana landfill. In 1991, a Carbone truck carrying illegal waste crashed and police discovered that Carbone was violating the ordinance. Clarkstown sued Carbone in a New York Supreme Court. Carbone responded by suing Clarkstown in a federal District Court, claiming that the ordinance violated the Commerce Clause by disrupting interstate commerce. The District Court agreed but dissolved its injunction against Clarkstown when the New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of Clarkstown.

Carter v. Miller - Oral Argument, Part 1

Tue, 29 Nov 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Carter v. Miller - Oral Argument, Part 2

Tue, 29 Nov 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Cts Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. Of America - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Edgar v. Mite Corporation - Oral Argument

Mon, 30 Nov 1981 12:00:00 -0500

The MITE Corp, organized under Delaware laws with its principal office in Connecticut, initiated a tender offer for all outstanding shares of Chicago Rivet & Machine Co., an Illinois corporation. The Illinois Business Take-Over Act requires a tender offeror to notify the Secretary of State and the target company of its intent to make a tender offer and the terms of the offer 20 days before the offer becomes effective. During that time, the target company, but not the offeror, is free to disseminate information about the offer to the target company's shareholders. In addition, the Secretary of State could call a hearing, and the offer could not proceed until the hearing was completed. Finally, the Secretary of State could deny registration of a takeover offer he or she found inequitable. MITE Corp. sought and won a declaratory judgment holding that the Illinois Act was pre-empted by the Williams Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78m(d)-(e) and 78n(d)-(f), and that it violated the Commerce Clause.

Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light - Oral Argument

Tue, 09 Nov 1982 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Ferguson v. Skrupa - Oral Argument, Part 1

Wed, 20 Mar 1963 12:00:00 -0500

A Kansas statute made it a misdemeanor to enter into contracts for "debt adjusting" (a practice in which a debtor agrees to pay a monthly fee to an adjustor who then makes payments to the debtor's creditor). Skrupa was in business as a "Credit Advisor" and engaged in this practice. A lower court held that the Kansas statute was an "unreasonable regulation of a lawful business" and struck it down.

Ferguson v. Skrupa - Oral Argument, Part 2

Wed, 20 Mar 1963 12:00:00 -0500

Fitzgerald v. Racing Association of Central Iowa - Oral Argument

Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500

A group of racetracks that earn revenue from gambling sued the state of Iowa, claiming that the state's practice of taxing racetrack gambling at a higher rate than riverboat gambling violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The group asserted that gambling at racetracks and riverboat casinos is is not substantially different, and that the state should therefore charge the same tax rate for both activities. A state district court sided with the state, ruling that important differences did exist between riverboat and racetrack gambling; the Iowa Supreme Court reversed in a 4-3 decision.

Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department Of Natural Resources - Oral Argument

Mon, 30 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

General Motors Corp. v. Romein - Oral Argument

Tue, 10 Dec 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Granholm v. Heald - Oral Argument

Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:00:00 -0500

Michigan and New York laws allowed in-state wineries to directly ship alcohol to consumers but restricted the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so. In separate cases groups sued the states and argued the laws violated the U.S. Constitution's "dormant" commerce clause. The dormant commerce clause prohibited states from passing laws affecting interstate commerce, particularly laws favoring in-state business over out-of-state business. The states argued the laws were valid exercises of state power under the 21st Amendment, which ended federal Prohibition and allowed states to regulate alcohol importation. A federal district court ruled for Michigan. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the Michigan law violated the dormant commerce clause and did not advance the core concerns of the 21st Amendment (such as temperance). A separate federal district court ruled against New York. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the 21st Amendment allowed New York's law.

Healy v. The Beer Institute - Oral Argument

Tue, 28 Mar 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons - Oral Argument

Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500

California regulates the minimum price paid to dairy farmers producing raw milk by establishing price minimums and requiring contributions to a price equalization pool. After it became profitable for some California processors to buy raw milk from out-of-state producers, the California Department of Food and Agriculture amended its regulations to require contributions to the price equalization pool on some out-of-state purchases. Four dairy farms in Nevada filed suit, alleging that the amendment unconstitutionally discriminated against them. Without reaching the merits, the District Court dismissed both cases. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 immunized California's milk pricing and pooling laws from Commerce Clause challenge. The appellate court also held that the individual petitioners' Privileges and Immunities Clause claims failed because the amendment did not create classifications based on any individual's residency or citizenship.

Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. - Oral Argument

Wed, 21 Jan 1976 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Ad. Comm. - Oral Argument

Tue, 22 Feb 1977 12:00:00 -0500

In 1972, the North Carolina Board of Agriculture adopted a regulation that required all apples shipped into the state in closed containers to display the USDA grade or nothing at all. Washington State growers(whose standards are higher than the USDA) challenged the regulation as an unreasonable burden to interstate commerce. North Carolina stated it was a valid exercise of its police powers to create "uniformity" to protect its citizenry from "fraud and deception."

Kassell v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of DL - Oral Argument

Tue, 04 Nov 1980 12:00:00 -0500

An Iowa law restricted the length of vehicles traveling on its highways. Iowa justified the law as a reasonable use of its police power to assure safety on the state's roads.

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. - Oral Argument

Mon, 03 Nov 1980 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

New Orleans v. Dukes - Oral Argument

Tue, 11 Nov 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Northwest Cent. Pipeline v. Kan. Corp. Comm'n - Oral Argument

Tue, 29 Nov 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Pharmaceutical Research v. Walsh - Oral Argument

Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:00:00 -0500

In order to achieve savings on Medicaid purchases above federal cost-saving measures, the "Maine Rx" Program reduces prescription drug prices for state residents. Under the program, Maine attempts negotiate rebates with drug manufacturers. If a company does not enter into a rebate agreement, its Medicaid sales are subjected to a prior authorization procedure that requires state agency approval to qualify a doctor's prescription for reimbursement. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an association of nonresident drug manufacturers, challenged the program, claiming that it is pre-empted by the Medicaid Act and violates the Commerce Clause. Without resolving any factual issues, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction preventing the statute's implementation, concluding that any obstacle to the federal program's administration is sufficient to establish pre-emption. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Philadelphia v. New Jersey - Oral Argument

Mon, 27 Mar 1978 12:00:00 -0500

A New Jersey law prohibited the importation of most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State."

Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice - Oral Argument, Part 1

Tue, 08 Nov 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice - Oral Argument, Part 2

Tue, 08 Nov 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Reeves Inc. v. Stake - Oral Argument

Wed, 16 Apr 1980 12:00:00 -0500

The state of South Dakota operated a cement plant. A substantial percentage of the plant's production was sold to buyers outside the state. One such customer was Reeves, Inc., a concrete distributor in Wyoming that obtained over 90 percent of its cement from the state-run plant. In 1978, for economic reasons, the South Dakota plant began supplying in-state customers before honoring other commitments. Reeves, Inc. challenged South Dakota's "hoarding" of resources.

United States Trust Co. of NY v. New Jersey - Oral Argument

Wed, 10 Nov 1976 12:00:00 -0500

New York and New Jersey had established a Port Authority to enhance water-bound business between the two states. In 1974, the states repealed a 1962 bond agreement which limited the Authority to administer commercial and passenger railroad subsidies.

White v. Mass. Council Of Constr. Employers - Oral Argument

Mon, 01 Nov 1982 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Yellow Transportation, Inc. v. Michigan - Oral Argument

Mon, 07 Oct 2002 12:00:00 -0500

Before 1994, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) allowed States to charge interstate motor carriers annual registration fees of up to $10 per vehicle. Under this system, some States discounted or waived registration fees for carriers from other States in exchange for reciprocal treatment. Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the ICC implemented a new registration system. ISTEA also capped state registration fees by establishing a fee system that "will result in a fee for each participating State that is equal to the fee?that such State collected or charged as of?1991." In 1991, the Michigan Public Service Commission did not levy a fee for Yellow Transportation, Inc.'s trucks pursuant to a reciprocal agreement. However, in 1992, the commission changed how it computed fees and, ultimately, levied a fee of $10 per vehicle on Yellow Transportation's entire fleet. Yellow Transportation sued, alleging that, because Michigan had not collected or charged a 1991 registration fee for those trucks, ISTEA's fee-cap provision prohibits Michigan from levying a fee for them. The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that reciprocity agreements are not relevant in determining what fee a State charged or collected as of 1991. The court reasoned that the new fee system is not based on the fees collected from one company, but at the generic fee Michigan charged or collected from carriers as of 1991.