The Commerce Clause: Volume 2

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss Commerce Clause doctrine. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power "[t]o regulate Commerce. . . among the several States[.]" U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Supreme Court has held the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce, meaning states may not enact laws that "unduly restrict interstate commerce." Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2449, 2459, 204 L.Ed.2d 801 (2019); accord Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824). This restriction on the states is commonly referred to as the "dormant Commerce Clause." Tenn. Wine & Spirits, 139 S. Ct. at 2459. A state statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause if it: (1) "clearly discriminates against interstate commerce in favor of in-state commerce," (2) "imposes a burden on interstate commerce that outweighs any benefits received," or (3) "has the practical effect of extraterritorial control on interstate commerce." Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Beebe, 574 F.3d 929, 942 (8th Cir. 2009). * * * "[T]he 'Commerce Clause . . . precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly out-side of the State's borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State[.]'" Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 336, 109 S.Ct. 2491, 105 L.Ed.2d 275 (1989) (ellipses in original) (quoting Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 642-43, 102 S.Ct. 2629, 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982) (plurality opinion)). A statute directly controlling wholly out-of-state commerce "is invalid regardless of whether the statute's extraterritorial reach was intended by the legislature." Id. Specifically, "no State may force an out-of-state merchant to seek regulatory approval in one State before undertaking a transaction in another." Id. at 337, 109 S.Ct. 2491. Styczinski v. Arnold, 46 F. 4th 907 (8th Cir. 2022)