•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The dormant Commerce Clause is one of the oldest constitutional doctrines in the United States and is essential in maintaining equal sovereignty among the states. While the doctrine has been substantially refined since it was first recognized, it had gone largely unchanged in recent years, until a controversial California law required further clarification of its scope.

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court considered whether a California law prohibiting the in-state sale of pork produced in cruel conditions was constitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause. The Court ultimately upheld the California law, holding that a regulation that generates an in-state moral benefit—to the detriment of out-of-state businesses—does not discriminate against interstate commerce in the manner proscribed by the dormant Commerce Clause.

In Part I, this Note traces the historical development of the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, beginning with its origin and leading to the modern understanding of the doctrine prior to National Pork. Part II discusses the facts and procedural history of National Pork, and summarizes the reasoning of the majority, plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions. Part III explores each analytical step taken by the Court in reaching its decision, considering the strength of the Court’s policy reasoning as well as its adherence to precedent. Part IV considers the impact of the decision on the scope of the dormant Commerce Clause and anticipates how the decision may complicate the regulation of various industries beyond pork production. Ultimately, this Note concludes that the Court correctly clarified the scope and limitations of the dormant Commerce Clause in invalidating independent state regulations while preserving the doctrine’s primary purpose.

First Page

1157

Download

Share

COinS