Con Law I - States & Federal Gov Relationship

Syracuse University College of Law - Professor Breen Spring 2026

Dormant Commerce Clause - Def

Judicial doctrine that restricts the ability of states to pass state legislation that affects IC.

Applies only to state law

Applies only when Congress has not acted (if they have = Preemption analysis)

Dormant Commerce Clause - Rule

Whether local law discriminates against IC or is generally applicable to local & IC

1. If discriminatory = Strict Scrutiny (Maine v. Taylor)

   1. Ct will ask whether there was a less restrictive way of achieving the policy goals

   2. If yes, statute struck down

2. If evenhanded = Pike Balancing Test

   1. Ct will ask whether local benefits are clearly outweighed by the burdens the statute places on IC

Carbone - Test for facially discriminatory laws

Per se invalid unless:

1. No other means to advance legitimate local interest

2. Rigorous scrutiny; “clearest showing”

Other DCC Cases

1. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission 

   1. NC apple growers wanted to restrict WA apple growers 

   2. Failed strict scrutiny 

2. Exxon v. Governor of Maryland

   1. State passed law prohibiting refiners from operating gas stations w/in the state  

   2. Nondiscriminatory (survived balancing test) 

3. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Cortrell 

   1. Laws that discriminate for purpose of opening up IC still must survive strict scrutiny 

   2. Discriminatory 

4. New Energy Co. Of Indiana v. Limbach 

   1. Direct state subsidies do not violate DCC 

DCC Exceptions

1. Market-Participant: distinction between market participants and regulators

2. Provider of government services

Preemption Categories

1. Express = explicit preemptive language

2. Field = congressional intent to exclusively regulate in this area; no room for the states to supplement w/ own legislation

3. Conflict = compliance w/ both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility or state law stands as an obstacle to the objectives of Congress

Arizona v. US

State immigration laws got in the way of federal immigration laws b/c immigration is already heavily regulated by the federal gov.

10A

Powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, are reserved to the states, or, to the people

NY v. US - Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

Congress may not require a state to enact state regulation.

Printz

ACD applies to state law enforcement and cannot commandeer executive branch of state govs.

Testa

Congress can require state cts to hear federal CoAs (application of supremacy clause).

The Civil Rights Cases

1. 14A applies only to state govs

2. 13A DOES apply to individuals but NOT civil wrongs

Marsh v. Alabama

If a private entity operates as a public town, they are a state actor and members of the public are entitled to the freedoms of the Constitution there.

Manhattan

A private entity is a state actor under the public function exception when exercising powers usually reserved to the states.

Burton

Symbiotic relationship test is fact & context dependent (state action getting more narrow)

Moose Lodge

Having a gov license does not automatically make one a state actor (state action getting even more narrow)

Lindke v. Freed

Social media user is a state actor if:

1. Action is traceable to state’s power/authority

2. Purported to exercise that authority