Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Untangling The Market-Participant Exemption To The Dormant Commerce Clause, Dan T. Coenen
Untangling The Market-Participant Exemption To The Dormant Commerce Clause, Dan T. Coenen
Michigan Law Review
This article explores the market-participant rule. Part I traces the rule's evolution and shows how it has proven less rigid than some initially feared. Part II probes the roots of the rule by challenging justifications for it suggested by other observers. Part III offers an alternative theory of the market-participant doctrine, arguing in particular that it rests on a cluster of rationales that properly have led· the Court to uphold marketplace preferences as the "general rule." Part IV builds on Part III to advance a new, four-part framework for evaluating market-participant issues. Part V then uses that framework to apply …
Untangling The Market-Participant Exemption To The Dormant Commerce Clause, Dan T. Coenen
Untangling The Market-Participant Exemption To The Dormant Commerce Clause, Dan T. Coenen
Scholarly Works
This article focuses on an important vehicle through which the modern Court has moved to protect local prerogatives: the market-participant exemption to the dormant commerce clause. The core of the Court's dormant commerce clause jurisprudence is well-settled: "The commerce clause, by its own force, prohibits discrimination against interstate commerce, whatever its form or method...” Over the past two decades, however, the Court has lifted this prohibition when states act as "market participants" rather than as "market regulators." Invoking this distinction, the Court has shielded from commerce clause attack blatant favoritism of local interests when a state or municipality buys printing …
Principles, Politics, And Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
Principles, Politics, And Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
Michigan Law Review
The contrast in Senator Thurmond's performance in hearings concerning Judge Bork, whose nomination he supported, and Justice Marshall, whose nomination he opposed, suggests the apparently cynical view that one's position on the proper scope of senatorial inquiry during a nomination depends upon one's position on the merits of the nomination. Much has been written, usually provoked by controversial nominations, about the proper scope of senatorial inquiry. The press of immediate controversy, however, diverts attention from more fundamental issues about the nature of constitutional government, to which I devote this essay.
Sandra Day O’Connor, Abortion, And Compromise For The Court, Susan M. Halatyn
Sandra Day O’Connor, Abortion, And Compromise For The Court, Susan M. Halatyn
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.