State Proprietary Activity Exception

State Proprietary Activity Exception

The State Proprietary Activity (Market Participant) Exception

In a case of first impression, the Court held that a Maryland bounty scheme by which the state paid scrap processors for each “hulk” automobile destroyed is “the kind of action with which the Commerce Clause is not concerned.” 1 As first enacted, the bounty plan did not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state processors, but it was amended in a manner that substantially disadvantaged out-of-state processors. The Court held “that entry by the State itself into the market itself as a purchaser, in effect, of a potential article of interstate commerce [does not] create[ ] a burden upon that commerce if the State restricts its trade to its own citizens or businesses within the State.” 2

More about State Proprietary Activity Exception

Affirming and extending this precedent, the Court held that a state operating a cement plant could in times of shortage (and presumably at any time) confine the sale of cement by the plant to residents of the state.3 “[T]he Commerce Clause responds principally to state taxes and regulatory measures impeding free private trade in the national marketplace. . . . There is no indication of a constitutional plan to limit the ability of the States themselves to operate freely in the free market.” 4 It is yet unclear how far this concept of the state as market participant rather than market regulator will be extended.980

Resources

References

This text about State Proprietary Activity Exception is based on “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation”, published by the U.S. Government Printing Office.

[Footnote 1] Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 805 (1976).

[Footnote 2] 426 U.S. at 808.

[Footnote 3] Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980).

[Footnote 4] 447 U.S. at 436-37.

Tables of Contents

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *