Assume that the State of Florida passed a law banning the importation of baitfish. This is an environmental law designed to protect the state’s fish from nonnative predators and parasites. Environmental protection is an area where states can regulate. What factors would the court use to determine if the act violates the commerce clause? Would the law be struck down or upheld?
Collapse SubdiscussionRunte, Claudia
Runte, Claudia
YesterdayOct 29 at 7:28pm
In this case the court would have to determine if Florida’s state law carries a strong enough presumption of validity. While the state of Florida may not directly regulate interstate commerce (in this case, the importation of baitfish), it may indirectly affect interstate commerce through the reasonable exercise of its police powers. Environmental protection falls within these police powers they as they may be exercised to protect or promote the public order, health, safety, morals, and general welfare (Miller, R. L., 2016). Since this law was enacted pursuant to a Florida’s police powers then it would overcome the presumption of invalidity.
This is a dormant commerce clause case because Florida’s state regulations regarding the importation of baitfish in order to protect native species from nonnative predators and parasites directly affects the interstate commerce even though that is not the purpose of the regulation. For the law to be upheld, courts would have to weigh the state’s interest in regulating the environmental protection of the state’s fish against the burden that Florida’s baitfish regulation places on interstate commerce. The courts must balance the interests involved so it is difficult to say for sure one way or the other without more information – such as how the regulation of baitfish into Florida impacts other businesses in the nation. If the impact to other states is high, then this may be a case for the national government and the law would likely be struck down. However, considering the environmental risks at stake, the courts may weigh the severity of a nonnative infestation and decide that Florida’s police powers in this case carry a strong enough presumption of validity (Miller, R. L., 2016).
Miller, R. L. (2016). Cengage Advantage Books: Essentials of the Legal Environment Today(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Chapter 3 & 4
STUDENT 2
Collapse SubdiscussionDoig, Andrea D.
Doig, Andrea D.
4:36pmOct 30 at 4:36pm
The Commerce Clause
The state of Florida is passing the law under the impression that it is protecting the state’s fish from nonnative parasites and predators. The state should, however, demonstrate how the ban would further important and non-economic state’s interests. Additionally, the state should prove beyond doubt that no other reasonable and nondiscriminatory alternatives exist.
Looking at the case of Maine v. Taylor of 1986, the state indicated that there were no less discriminatory measures that were available at that time (“Maine V. Taylor,” n.d.). The main reason for the ban was to protect its fishing industry from external threats such as parasites or non-native fish from other states or countries. Supporting the decision, there were concerns that the out-of-state fish would introduce increased competition in terms of food and therefore endanger the native fish and its ability to survive (“Maine V. Taylor,” n.d.). This gave the state the power to protect its fragile fishing industry from such environmental risks.
The Commerce Clause grants power to Congress, enabling it to regulate Commerce with other Nations, with Indian Tribes and among States (“Maine V. Taylor,” n.d.). However, if Florida were to pass a law banning the importation of baitfish, it would risk burdening interstate Commerce. This is when a State erects barriers of trade against other States by prohibiting “import, export, transport, selling, receiving, acquiring, or purchasing any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation upon any law … of the United States” (Gorjanc, 2004). The Lacey Act protects, preserves, and restores wildlife resources in the States by preventing exotic species from posing a threat to the native species while avoiding the introduction of laws by various states preventing interstate Commerce.
The law in the State of Florida would be upheld by the Court because there exist no other effective means for the State to protect its wildlife. Therefore, restricting trade directly by blocking all shipments of live baitfish entering the State at the borders is a viable option until a less discriminatory alternative is formulated. The Court, when scrutinizing such a law, must use the two-tier standard of review. These involve strict scrutiny requiring the Court to ensure the law does not discriminate against interstate commerce (Denning, 2019, p. 105). In addition, to prove its validity, the Court would have to prove that the law has a legitimate end, and, as above mentioned, there exist no less discriminatory alternatives because if there were, the Court would be forced to strike the law down. Referring to the example mentioned above, of Maine v. Taylor, Maine was protecting its fish from harmful parasites. Which made it a legitimate interest, and there existed no other measures to determine whether the live fish contained harmful parasites; hence, the law was able to survive scrutiny and bar all incoming fish.
The second standard of review consists of a balancing test. Here, the law should be neutral, which means that it should be able to balance its purpose, on its face, and its effects, and it should not be corrupted by discrimination or economic protectionism (Denning, 2019, p. 105). The law will only be struck down if the challenger proves that the burden on interstate commerce exceeds local benefits that the law claims. For instance, if the Court was to decide that the law discriminates against other states, mainly because the state’s supply of baitfish is substantial. It could be interpreted as a burden under the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, meaning the state would be considered to be satisfied with their own supply of baitfish and stop importing (“Maine V. Taylor,” n.d.). Based on the argument, the Court can strike the law down if it declares the benefits on the environment are too vague to justify its purpose.