Helix BBQ: Const. Law-Federalism Based Limits on State Authority with Explanations

 Which of the following best describes the “dormant commerce clause”?

A.Constitutional limits on state authority over interstate commerce.

Solution: The correct answer is A.

 

Answer option A is correct. Even in the absence of any congressional or federal action, the Constitution limits state authority in the realm of interstate commerce. Article I, § 8, cl. 3. This is known as the negative implications of the commerce clause or the dormant commerce clause.

What level of judicial review is used to determine the constitutionality of a state law that expressly discriminates against interstate commerce?

A.Strict scrutiny.

Solution: The correct answer is A.

Answer option A is correct. No state may expressly discriminate against interstate commerce unless the regulation meets strict scrutiny. This means that the state must have a compelling interest (generally health and safety) for enacting the law and that there can be no less restrictive way of achieving the goal than by enacting the discriminatory law.

Under which of the following circumstances may a state pass a law that affects interstate commerce but does not expressly discriminate against it?

C.Where the state law does not unduly interfere with interstate commerce.

Solution: The correct answer is C.

Answer option C is correct. A nondiscriminatory state law affecting interstate commerce will typically be constitutional if it does not unduly interfere with such commerce. Ordinarily, however, when a state law does not discriminate against interstate commerce, courts will not engage in a balancing test to determine whether the law unduly interferes with interstate commerce (although in certain situations the court may weigh the burdens of the state law in terms of its impact on interstate commerce against the law's local benefits).

Any of the following would permit a state to discriminate against out-of-state interests under the dormant commerce clause, except which?

D.Sovereign immunity.

Solution: The correct answer is D.

Answer option D is correct. States may pass facially nondiscriminatory laws that do not place an undue burden on interstate commerce. Moreover, the market participant exception and express congressional authorization may allow states to discriminate against out-of-state interests. Sovereign immunity is not a doctrine related to the dormant commerce clause.

 A state passes a law that offers in-state student-residents lower tuition for public universities in that state than out-of-state students.

If the law is found to be constitutional notwithstanding the dormant commerce clause, what is the most likely reason why?

A.The state is acting as a participant of a particular market in that state.

Solution: The correct answer is A.

 

Answer option A is correct. A state may discriminate against out-of-state interests if the state is acting as a participant (i.e., a buyer or seller), rather than a regulator, of a particular market in the state. This market-participant exception allows states to, for example, offer in-state students lower tuition and higher rates of acceptance in public universities or colleges in that state than students residing in other states.

Despite the dormant commerce clause, a state acting as a regulator may discriminate against out-of-state interests in favor of a publicly owned enterprise if the regulation is which of the following?

B.An exercise of a traditional government function.

Solution: The correct answer is B.

Answer option B is correct. Even where the state is acting as a regulator, it may discriminate against out-of-state interests in favor of a publicly owned enterprise if the regulation is an exercise of a traditional government function.

In which situation below would a state’s discrimination against nonresidents with respect to interstate commerce be constitutional?

C.Where Congress has passed a law that expressly authorizes the discrimination.

Solution: The correct answer is C.

Answer option C is correct. Congress may enact a statute that expressly authorizes states to discriminate against nonresidents with regard to interstate commerce. If Congress passes such a statute, then a discriminatory state regulation does not violate the dormant commerce clause because it has been authorized.

Which of the following is NOT a requirement for a state’s tax on an entity that does business in more than one state to be constitutional?

A.The entity being taxed must have a physical presence within the taxing state.

Solution: The correct answer is A.

Answer option A is correct. A state tax on an entity that does business in more than one state generally will be upheld if it satisfies four criteria. One, the entity being taxed must have a substantial nexus with the taxing state (although it need not have a physical presence there). Two, the tax must be fairly apportioned so that it applies only to the business activity done in-state. Three, the tax must not discriminate against interstate commerce. Four, the tax must be fairly related to the services the state provides.

Which circumstance below will NOT give rise to implied preemption of a federal law over a state law?

D.Where the state law enhances federal regulations in a particular field.

Solution: The correct answer is D.

Answer option D is correct. Implied preemption may arise when a state law conflicts with a federal law; this occurs where one of three circumstances is present: (1) it is impossible to comply with both laws at the same time; (2) the state law interferes with or is an obstacle to the purposes of the federal law; or (3) the state law seeks to regulate a field that is already fully occupied (i.e., regulated) by the federal government.

A federal law mandates that certain bedding materials be listed as potential carcinogens.

In which of the following situations is a state’s law on this issue likely to be overridden under the doctrine of preemption?

B.Where the state law includes most of the materials identified in the federal law but exempts one of them from its own listing requirement of potential carcinogenic materials.

Solution: The correct answer is B.

Answer option B is correct. It is unlikely that a federal law would preempt a state law where the laws promote the same purpose and are not in conflict. Implied preemption may arise when a state law conflicts with a federal law. A state law conflicts with a federal law when one of three circumstances is present: (1) it is impossible to comply with both laws at the same time (i.e., there is a direct conflict between the two laws); (2) the state law interferes with or is an obstacle to the purposes of the federal law; or (3) the state law seeks to regulate a field that is already fully occupied (i.e., regulated) by the federal government (“field preemption”). If the state law exempts a material the federal law describes as a carcinogen, it is in direct conflict with the federal law. (Note that the inexhaustive list in answer option C's state law poses no direct conflict with the federal law, nor does the state law interfere with the federal law.)

Which of the following provides that a state law that conflicts with a valid federal law will be preempted?

C.The supremacy clause of Article VI.

Solution: The correct answer is C.

Answer option C is correct. The supremacy clause (Art. VI, cl. 2) mandates that the federal government will prevail if there is any conflict between a valid federal law or action and a state law or action. Valid federal laws preempt any conflicting state laws.

For what purposes, if any, may one state inquire into the judgment of another state’s court?

C.For determining whether the other state’s judgment is valid, final, and on the merits.

Solution: The correct answer is C.

Answer option C is correct. A judgment in one state is entitled to full faith and credit in all other states when it is valid, final, and on the merits. States may inquire into the judgment of another state’s court only to the extent necessary to determine whether the judgment is valid (i.e., the issuing court had jurisdiction), final (i.e., there can be no further proceedings in the issuing state), and on the merits (i.e., the case was not dismissed on procedural or jurisdictional grounds).

Which of the following provides that each state must respect the laws, public records, and judicial judgments of every other state?

D.The full faith and credit clause of Article IV.

Solution: The correct answer is D.

Answer option D is correct. The full faith and credit clause (Art. IV, § 1) requires a state to respect the laws, public records, and judicial judgments of every other state