American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)

Export Restrictions: state power exercised to prohibit exports to other states. If formally discriminatory will be struck down under Art. IV, sec. 2.

1. 
   H.P. Hood & Sons v. DuMond, 1949: NY gave licenses for milk receipt, denied additional license to Mass businessman. Court strikes this down because state favoring local interests, adverse impact on out-of-state businesses. Blatant protectionism.
   
2. 
   Hughes v. OK, 1979: state natural resource law prohibits transportation of minnows out of the state for sale elsewhere. Court strikes this down b/c the law stops the movement of a product interstate. A state can put caps, limit use of a resource, but can’t draw distinctions between in and out-of-state businesses. (Phili v. NJ). Rely on least restrictive means analysis.
   
3. 
   Granholm v. Heald (2005): ct strikes down Michigan and NY laws that provided that in-state wineries could ship wine directly to consumers but out-of-state wineries could not. Held that laws discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of Commerce Clause, Art I §8. Law mandated differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state eco interests that benefits in-state producers and burdens out-of-state producers. Even under §2 of the 21^st A, states must regulate domestic and imported liquor on EQUAL terms.
   

Price Restrictions: generally disallowed

1. 
   Baldwin v. GAF Seeling, 1935: NY Milk Control Act sets min prices for milk sold in state, prohibited out-of-state milk sales below this level. Strikes this down (Cardozo), b/c they are stifling competition. Consumers have rt to competitive advantage (lower prices, better quality) throughout the country.
   
2. 
   Hanneford v. Silas Mason: sales tax in one state that places tax burden on goods bought out-of-state. Cardozo allows this because sales tax equalizing differences between two states, not affecting the price and product advantage.
   

Preemption: when Congress chooses to use its CC power, it is valid as long as regulating eco transactions

1. 
   Pacific Gas & Elec. v. State Energy Resources, 1983: CA law placed moratorium on new nuclear power plants until new disposal method in place, though fed law regulates nuclear power plants. Preempted if state law concerns safety but ct finds that state law is only focused on economic concerns. State has historical ability to regulate utilities, no conflict with underlying congressional purpose.
   
2. 
   Ct often asks if state law would be constitutional under negative commerce clause. If constitutional fed law w/n preempt, if unconstitutional will preempt. When ambiguous intent, cts look at neg CC tests always subject to congressional override.