Skip to content

Booksellers & Trade Customers: Sign up for online bulk buying at trade.atlanticbooks.com for wholesale discounts

Booksellers: Create Account on our B2B Portal for wholesale discounts

The Commerce Clause

by Landmark Publications
Save 8% Save 8%
Current price ₹3,261.00
Original price ₹3,548.00
Original price ₹3,548.00
Original price ₹3,548.00
(-8%)
₹3,261.00
Current price ₹3,261.00

Imported Edition - Ships in 18-21 Days

Free Shipping in India on orders above Rs. 500

Request Bulk Quantity Quote
+91
Book cover type: Paperback
  • ISBN13: 9781093850642
  • Binding: Paperback
  • Subject: N/A
  • Publisher: Independently Published
  • Publisher Imprint: Independently Published
  • Publication Date:
  • Pages: 554
  • Original Price: USD 36.2
  • Language: English
  • Edition: N/A
  • Item Weight: 731 grams
  • BISAC Subject(s): Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply Commerce Clause doctrine. * * * Implicit in the constitutional allocation of the "Power ... To regulate Commerce ... among the several States," U.S. Const. art. I, 8, cl. 3, to the federal government is a corollary "constraint on the power of the States to enact legislation that interferes with or burdens interstate commerce." Brown v. Hovatter, 561 F.3d 357, 362 (4th Cir. 2009). This doctrine, known as the "dormant" commerce clause, "is driven by concern about economic protectionism" and seeks to prevent state "regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors." Id. at 363 (quoting Dep't of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328, 337-38, 128 S.Ct. 1801, 170 L.Ed.2d 685 (2008)). * * * The principle against extraterritoriality as it relates to the dormant commerce clause is derived from the notion that "a State may not regulate commerce occurring wholly outside of its borders." Star Sci., Inc. v. Beales, 278 F.3d 339, 355 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 335-36, 109 S.Ct. 2491, 105 L.Ed.2d 275 (1989); Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 582-83, 106 S.Ct. 2080, 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986); Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 642-43, 102 S.Ct. 2629, 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982) (plurality opinion)). The principle "reflect[s] the Constitution's special concern both with the maintenance of a national economic union unfettered by state-imposed limitations on interstate commerce and with the autonomy of the individual States within their respective spheres." Healy, 491 U.S. at 335-36, 109 S.Ct. 2491 (footnote omitted). A state law violates the extraterritoriality principle if it either expressly applies to out-of-state commerce, see Carolina Trucks & Equip., Inc. v. Volvo Trucks of N. Am., Inc., 492 F.3d 484, 491-92 (4th Cir. 2007), or has that "practical effect," regardless of the legislature's intent, Star Sci., 278 F.3d at 355. Association for Accessible Medicines v. Frosh, 887 F. 3d 664 (4th Cir. 2018)

Trusted for over 49 years

Family Owned Company

Secure Payment

All Major Credit Cards/Debit Cards/UPI & More Accepted

New & Authentic Products

India's Largest Distributor

Need Support?

Whatsapp Us