Also known as: dormant commerce principles · dormant commerce clause · negative commerce clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicially created doctrine that limits the power of state governments to regulate interstate commerce. The doctrine prohibits states from discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate commerce when Congress has remained silent on the matter.
State officials in Maine prohibit the importation of live baitfish from out of state to safeguard local aquatic ecosystems. Delilah Duran, an out-of-state supplier, challenges the ban as facially discriminatory. The court upholds the measure after finding it advances a legitimate non-economic interest with no reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives available.
State Verde imposes higher disposal fees on hazardous waste generated outside its borders than on in-state waste. Dover Bank, an out-of-state processor, sues claiming the differential violates the dormant commerce principle. The court invalidates the surcharge because origin-based cost differentials are presumptively invalid without congressional approval.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
State regulators permit in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers but bar out-of-state wineries from the same privilege. Duarte Shipping, an out-of-state winery, brings suit alleging economic protectionism. The court holds the scheme unconstitutional under the dormant commerce principle even though enacted under the Twenty-First Amendment.
State procurement officers pay higher rates for scrap metal sold by in-state residents while offering lower prices to nonresidents. Doris Duffy, an out-of-state dealer, claims the policy discriminates against interstate commerce. The court rejects the challenge under the market participant doctrine because the state is buying goods rather than regulating the market.
County officials enact a flow-control ordinance requiring haulers to deliver waste only to a publicly owned processing plant. Dawson Steel, a private hauler, sues after losing cheaper out-of-state disposal options. The court applies lenient review and sustains the ordinance because the preference favors a government facility performing a traditional public function.
Congress enacts legislation expressly permitting states to impose surcharges on out-of-state nuclear waste. State officials adopt the surcharge and an out-of-state generator challenges it. The court upholds the fee because congressional authorization removes the dormant commerce principle restriction.
Congress may expressly authorize states to discriminate against interstate commerce in specified ways. Once Congress clearly permits a particular form of discrimination, the dormant commerce principle no longer applies and the state measure is upheld.
A state acting as a market participant rather than a regulator may favor its own citizens in commercial dealings. Such preferences do not violate the dormant commerce principle because the state is buying goods rather than regulating the broader market.
Flow-control ordinances directing waste to a government-owned facility receive more lenient review. The favoritism is upheld when the public provider performs a traditional government function because the measure is presumed to advance legitimate public objectives rather than economic protectionism.
A facially discriminatory state law survives only if it serves a legitimate and important non-economic local interest and no reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives exist. The state must demonstrate both the importance of the interest and the absence of less restrictive options.
…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)…