The burden placed on interstate commerce by Arizona's law is unconstitutional because Arizona's interest in identifying the origin of cantaloupes is outweighed by the heavy cost of building and operating a packing plant in Arizona[1]
An Arizona statute required that Arizona-grown cantaloupes advertise their state of origin on each package. Bruce Church, Inc. was an Arizona grower of high quality cantaloupes. Instead of packing them in Arizona, it transported them to nearby California facilities, where they were not labeled as grown in Arizona.[3]
Arizona issued an order prohibiting Church from shipping uncrated cantaloupes from the Arizona ranch, and requiring that the cantaloupes be packed in Arizona and identified as coming from an Arizona packer. This would have cost Church $200,000 to pack a $700,000 crop.[3]
The company then brought a suit in federal court to stop Arizona from enforcing the order prohibiting Church from shipping the cantaloupes.
Opinion of the Courtedit
State statutes that have a negative effect on interstate commerce are unconstitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Stewart used a balancing test.
Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will, of course, depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities.[3]
Applying this test to the Arizona statute, the court found it imposed too great of a burden to justify its benefits.[3]
Text of Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397U.S. 137 (1970) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
pike, bruce, church, 1970, case, which, supreme, court, united, states, held, that, power, states, pass, laws, interfering, with, interstate, commerce, limited, when, poses, undue, burden, businesses, supreme, court, united, statesargued, january, 1970decided,. Pike v Bruce Church Inc 397 U S 137 1970 was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that power of states to pass laws interfering with interstate commerce is limited when the law poses an undue burden on businesses 3 Pike v Bruce Church Inc Supreme Court of the United StatesArgued January 13 1970Decided March 2 1970Full case nameLoren J Pike v Bruce Church Inc Citations397 U S 137 more 90 S Ct 844 25 L Ed 2d 174 1970 U S LEXIS 63HoldingThe burden placed on interstate commerce by Arizona s law is unconstitutional because Arizona s interest in identifying the origin of cantaloupes is outweighed by the heavy cost of building and operating a packing plant in Arizona 1 Court membershipChief Justice Warren E Burger Associate Justices Hugo Black William O DouglasJohn M Harlan II William J Brennan Jr Potter Stewart Byron WhiteThurgood MarshallCase opinionMajorityStewart joined by unanimousLaws appliedThe Arizona Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Act 2 Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksBackground editAn Arizona statute required that Arizona grown cantaloupes advertise their state of origin on each package Bruce Church Inc was an Arizona grower of high quality cantaloupes Instead of packing them in Arizona it transported them to nearby California facilities where they were not labeled as grown in Arizona 3 Arizona issued an order prohibiting Church from shipping uncrated cantaloupes from the Arizona ranch and requiring that the cantaloupes be packed in Arizona and identified as coming from an Arizona packer This would have cost Church 200 000 to pack a 700 000 crop 3 The company then brought a suit in federal court to stop Arizona from enforcing the order prohibiting Church from shipping the cantaloupes Opinion of the Court editState statutes that have a negative effect on interstate commerce are unconstitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause Justice Stewart used a balancing test Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits If a legitimate local purpose is found then the question becomes one of degree And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities 3 Applying this test to the Arizona statute the court found it imposed too great of a burden to justify its benefits 3 See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 397 List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger CourtReferences edit LexisNexis Courtroom Cast Loren J Pike v Bruce Church Inc Ariz Rev Stat Ann Tit 3 c 3 Art 4 a b c d e Pike v Bruce Church Inc 397 U S 137 1970 nbsp This article incorporates public domain material from this U S government document External links editText of Pike v Bruce Church Inc 397 U S 137 1970 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio nbsp This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Pike v Bruce Church Inc amp oldid 1210020151, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
