Commerce Clause: State of Alpha
Consider Commerce Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Supremacy & Preemption issues
Golden is a privately-owned company engaged in the business of disposing toxic waste generated by mining companies. Golden operates pursuant to a license issued by the state of Alpha. This license authorizes Golden to contract with miners to provide the following services: (i) collection of toxic waste at mine sites, and (ii) transportation of that waste to Golden’s disposal station, which is in the State of Alpha, three miles from the border with the state of Beta.
In accordance with the authority granted by its license for the past 10 years Golden has contracted to provide services to miners in Alpha. Recently, Golden expanded its business to serve the miners in Beta and the emerging battery businesses across the border in Beta.
Shortly after Golden extended its services to the Beta miners and plants, the residents of the town from which the toxic waste disposal station operates started complaining about the rash of skin irritations, and increased illness.
Prior to Golden’s expansion of service to the State of Beta miners and the battery business, the U.S. Congress has passed legislation promulgating standards for safe disposal of toxic materials including batteries.
The residents petitioned the State of Alpha to close Golden’s disposal station. Golden objected. The Commissioner held open hearings. Following the hearings, the state issued an order that the use of Golden’s disposal station would be limited to toxic waste from Alpha miners only. The Beta miners and battery businesses were barred from disposing of their toxic waste through Golden.
Both Golden and the State of Beta have filed suit against State of Alpha seeking to rescind the order. Develop a F-IRAC for the constitutional legal issues related to the Commerce Clause, the Dormant Commerce Clause, Supremacy and Preemption.
Post: Write a properly labeled RULE: Statement for the issue of this F-IRAC.
The rule statement is written in paragraph form. Its purpose is to provide the generic rule which would be applicable to all cases involving the same issues. Thus it often starts with the word “Generally”. Because this case involves constitutional issues the rule does attribute its source to the appropriate provision of the constitution. The rule is written as a statement of law not an explanation of that law and thus expressions like “states that” or “is when” are not appropriate. It does not mention facts from the current case. It does not mention any prior case. it does not take the form of lists.
Continuing with the silly example started in the Issue discussion it might start out like this: Generally, dope smoking is guaranteed in Article 1500 of The Universal Minutes of Freedom. No state may interfere with this guarantee by baring smoking, removing smoking benches, or depriving these guarantees without violating the Universal Minutes of Freedom. In our discussion there are likely more extensive rules to be written but this might help you with the tone of a rule statement rather than an “explanation” of the rule.