Under the dormant Commerce Clause, when may a state regulate interstate commerce?

Under the dormant Commerce Clause, when may a state regulate interstate commerce?

• A. Always allowed.
• B. Only when regulation concerns defense.
• C. If Congress authorizes it.
• D. If it serves a legitimate local purpose that cannot be achieved without the regulation and does not discriminate against interstate commerce.

Answer: (D)

Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, a state may regulate interstate commerce only if the regulation does not discriminate against out-of-state interests and does not impose an undue burden, unless Congress authorizes the regulation. The test captured here asks for a regulation that serves a legitimate local purpose, is necessary to achieve that purpose (i.e., there is no workable alternative), and applies in a non-discriminatory way. When a law hits that mark, it can stand because it serves a valid local objective without unfairly disadvantaging interstate commerce. This is grounded in the Pike balancing approach, where the court weighs local benefits against the burden on interstate commerce; a non-discriminatory, necessary regulation with legitimate local aims typically survives because the burden is not unduly burdensome relative to the local benefits. While congressional authorization can permit regulation that would otherwise violate the Dormant Clause, the everyday permissible state regulation under this standard is precisely that it advances a local objective, is necessary to achieve it, and remains non-discriminatory toward interstate commerce.

Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, a state may regulate interstate commerce only if the regulation does not discriminate against out-of-state interests and does not impose an undue burden, unless Congress authorizes the regulation. The test captured here asks for a regulation that serves a legitimate local purpose, is necessary to achieve that purpose (i.e., there is no workable alternative), and applies in a non-discriminatory way. When a law hits that mark, it can stand because it serves a valid local objective without unfairly disadvantaging interstate commerce.

This is grounded in the Pike balancing approach, where the court weighs local benefits against the burden on interstate commerce; a non-discriminatory, necessary regulation with legitimate local aims typically survives because the burden is not unduly burdensome relative to the local benefits. While congressional authorization can permit regulation that would otherwise violate the Dormant Clause, the everyday permissible state regulation under this standard is precisely that it advances a local objective, is necessary to achieve it, and remains non-discriminatory toward interstate commerce.