Which case established the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine limiting state laws that burden interstate commerce?

Which case established the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine limiting state laws that burden interstate commerce?

• A. Gibbons v. Ogden
• B. Cooley v. Board of Wardens
• C. Gonzales v. Raich
• D. United States v. Morrison

Answer: (B)

The Dormant Commerce Clause restricts states from enacting laws that burden or discriminate against interstate commerce when Congress has not spoken on the subject. Cooley v. Board of Wardens is the case that helped shape this doctrine by recognizing that, in the absence of federal regulation, a state may regulate local matters that affect commerce if it serves a legitimate local interest and does not unduly burden interstate trade. In that decision, the Court upheld a Pennsylvania rule requiring ships entering Philadelphia to hire a local pilot, signaling that states can impose regulation for local concerns, but only within the bounds that respect the federal government’s overall power over interstate commerce. This establishes the balancing approach at the heart of dormant-clause analysis: state regulations may stand when they address local needs and do not create an undue burden on national commerce, whereas broader federal preemption or explicit national standards would override such state rules. The other cases involve the scope of Congress’s power to regulate commerce or the boundaries of federal authority in different contexts, not the foundational idea of dormant restraints on state laws burdening interstate commerce.

The Dormant Commerce Clause restricts states from enacting laws that burden or discriminate against interstate commerce when Congress has not spoken on the subject. Cooley v. Board of Wardens is the case that helped shape this doctrine by recognizing that, in the absence of federal regulation, a state may regulate local matters that affect commerce if it serves a legitimate local interest and does not unduly burden interstate trade. In that decision, the Court upheld a Pennsylvania rule requiring ships entering Philadelphia to hire a local pilot, signaling that states can impose regulation for local concerns, but only within the bounds that respect the federal government’s overall power over interstate commerce. This establishes the balancing approach at the heart of dormant-clause analysis: state regulations may stand when they address local needs and do not create an undue burden on national commerce, whereas broader federal preemption or explicit national standards would override such state rules. The other cases involve the scope of Congress’s power to regulate commerce or the boundaries of federal authority in different contexts, not the foundational idea of dormant restraints on state laws burdening interstate commerce.