Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Physical Presence Is In No Wayfair!: Addressing The Supreme Court’S Removal Of The Physical Presence Rule And The Need For Congressional Action, Claire Shook
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The Commerce Clause of Article I grants Congress the power to regulate commerce. In the past, an entity had to have a physical presence in a state for that state to impose taxes on the entity. Due to the changing landscape of online businesses, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in South Dakota v. Wayfair in June 2018 to remove the physical presence rule as it applied to the Commerce Clause analysis of state taxation. The Wayfair decision’s ramification is that states can now impose taxes on businesses conducting sales online without having any physical presence in those states. While the …
The Constitution's Forgotten Cover Letter: An Essay On The New Federalism And The Original Understanding, Daniel A. Farber
The Constitution's Forgotten Cover Letter: An Essay On The New Federalism And The Original Understanding, Daniel A. Farber
Daniel A Farber
At the end of the summer of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention issued two documents. One was the Constitution itself. The other document, now almost forgotten even by constitutional historians, was an official letter to Congress, signed by George Washington on behalf of the Convention. Congress responded with a resolution that the Constitution and "letter accompanying the same" be sent to the state legislatures for submission to conventions in each state.
The Washington letter lacks the detail and depth of some other evidence of original intent. Being a cover letter, it was designed only to introduce the accompanying document rather than …
Borderless Commons Under Attack? Reconciling Recent Supreme Court Decisions With Watershed Scale Management, Mike Pease, Olen Paul Matthews
Borderless Commons Under Attack? Reconciling Recent Supreme Court Decisions With Watershed Scale Management, Mike Pease, Olen Paul Matthews
Seattle Journal of Environmental Law
Water managers have long called for management at watershed scales, instead of using hydrologically arbitrary boundaries like political borders. Considerable effort has been made in recent years to manage watersheds more holistically, but efforts to transfer water across state boundaries have been problematic, thwarted by legal and political obstacles. In Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann the transferability of water across state boundaries has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Tarrant, a water district in Texas, attempted to reallocate water from Oklahoma. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the case narrowly, focusing on the wording of the Compact, and determined Congress …
Deference Vs. Evidence: An Exploration Of The Appropriate Application Of Putative Benefits To The Pike Balancing Test, Nathan Gniewek
Deference Vs. Evidence: An Exploration Of The Appropriate Application Of Putative Benefits To The Pike Balancing Test, Nathan Gniewek
Catholic University Law Review
The Supreme Court has long done battle with the intricacies and subtle implications of the interplay between state and federal power with regard to commerce. Although the Supreme Court crafted the Pike balancing test in 1970, that test has proven a jurisprudential headache due to a lack of a solid definition of the key phrase “putative benefits.”
Since the Supreme Court decided Pike v. Bruce Church, circuit courts have been unable to apply the term consistently when making use of the Pike test, generating a massive circuit split. This Comment teases out the differing treatment of states’ burden of …
Recent Developments, Raelynn J. Hillhouse
The Most Revealing Word In The United States Report, Richard Primus
The Most Revealing Word In The United States Report, Richard Primus
Articles
The most prominent issue in NFIB v. Sebelius was whether Congress’s regulatory power under the Commerce Clause stops at a point marked by a distinction between “activity” and “inactivity.” According to the law’s challengers, prior decisions about the scope of the commerce power already reflected the importance of the distinction between action and inaction. In all of the previous cases in which exercises of the commerce power had been sustained, the challengers argued, that power had been used to regulate activity. Never had Congress tried to regulate mere inactivity. In NFIB, four Justices rejected that contention, writing that such …
Constitutional Environmental Law, Or, The Constitutional Consequences Of Insisting That The Environment Is Everybody's Business, Robin Kundis Craig
Constitutional Environmental Law, Or, The Constitutional Consequences Of Insisting That The Environment Is Everybody's Business, Robin Kundis Craig
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
Constitutional environmental law has become a recognized and institutionalized specialty within environmental law, an acknowledgement of the pervasive interactions between the U.S. Constitution and the federal environmental statutes that go well beyond the normal constitutional underpinnings of federal administrative law. This Article posits that constitutional environmental law is the result of Congress consciously deciding that environmental protection is everybody’s business — specifically, from Congress’s that states should participate in rather than be preempted by federal environmental law, that private citizens and organizations should help to enforce the statutes, and that private land and water rights are necessary components of national …
Chapter 8: Is The Preemption Clause Of Erisa Unconstitutional?, Andrew Morrison, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Chapter 8: Is The Preemption Clause Of Erisa Unconstitutional?, Andrew Morrison, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Faculty Scholarship
The authors suggest plaintiffs and/or state attorneys general should consider taking Justice Clarence Thomas up on his effective suggestion, in the 2016 Supreme Court case of Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, to put before the federal courts the question whether the preemption clause of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) represented a valid exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. ERISA’s exceptionally broad statement of preemption does in fact seem to have unconstitutional reach: It purports to preempt “any and all” state laws that simply “relate to” employee benefits, a formulation without logical …