Also known as: dormant commerce clause · dormant Commerce Clause doctrine · negative commerce clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicially created doctrine that prohibits states from enacting laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce when Congress has not acted. The doctrine enforces a national free trade zone by striking down protectionist state measures. It applies strict scrutiny to facial discrimination and a balancing test to evenhanded regulations with incidental burdens.
The State of Maine enacts a statute barring all out-of-state live baitfish to protect native fish populations from parasites. An out-of-state supplier challenges the ban as facially discriminatory. The court upholds the statute because the state demonstrates a legitimate non-economic interest in ecological protection and shows no reasonable nondiscriminatory alternative exists.
A state imposes a higher per-ton fee on hazardous waste generated outside its borders than on in-state waste. An out-of-state generator refuses payment and sues. The court invalidates the surcharge because the origin-based differential constitutes presumptively invalid economic discrimination.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A state permits in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers but requires out-of-state wineries to use in-state wholesalers. An out-of-state winery sues after its direct-shipment application is denied. The court holds the scheme violates the dormant commerce doctrine because it amounts to economic protectionism not saved by the Twenty-First Amendment.
The State Steel Authority pays above-market prices for scrap from in-state recyclers and imposes quantity caps and testing on out-of-state suppliers. An out-of-state recycler sues claiming discrimination. The court rejects the claim because the state is acting as a market participant rather than a regulator.
A county requires all solid waste collected within its borders to be delivered to a publicly owned processing facility. Private haulers challenge the ordinance as discriminatory. The court applies lenient review and upholds the measure because the favoritism advances legitimate public objectives rather than economic protectionism.
A state imposes a surcharge on out-of-state nuclear waste pursuant to an express federal statute. An out-of-state generator sues claiming a dormant commerce violation. The court upholds the surcharge because Congress expressly authorized the discrimination.
The doctrine applies when the state buys or sells goods or services in the marketplace rather than regulating private transactions. In that posture the state may favor its own residents without violating the dormant commerce doctrine.
Yes. When Congress clearly authorizes states to impose origin-based surcharges or other discriminatory measures in a specified sector, the dormant commerce doctrine does not invalidate the state action.
The law survives only if it serves a legitimate and important non-economic local interest and no reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives exist.
Such ordinances receive more lenient review and are often upheld when they favor a government-owned provider performing a traditional public function motivated by legitimate public objectives rather than protectionism.
…of federal regulation under the commerce power. When cases involving these laws first reached this Court, we imported from our negative Commerce Clause cases the approach that Congress could not regulate activities such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining." See, e. g. , United States v. E. C. Knight Co. , 156 U. S. 1, 12 (1895)…