Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/897239.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,741 chars

question under the dormant commerce clause doctrine is whether the state law

"discriminates on its face against interstate commerce." Id. "In this context,

"'discrimination" simply means differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state

economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter."' I d. (quoting Or.

Waste Sys., Inc. v. Dep 't ofEnvtl. Quality of Or., 511 U.S. 93, 99, 114 S. Ct. 1345,

128 L. Ed. 2d 13 (1994)). "Discriminatory laws motivated by 'simple economic

protectionism' are subject to a 'virtually per se rule of invalidity,' which can only be

overcome by a showing that the State has no other means to advance a legitimate local

purpose." Id. at 338-39 (citation omitted) (quoting City ofPhiladelphia, 437 U.S.

617,624,98 S. Ct. 2531,57 L. Ed. 2d 475 (1978)).

However, if a state law does not "discriminate[] on its face against interstate

commerce," id. at 338, the law is subject to "the test set forth in Pike v. Bruce Church,

39
             
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142[, 90S. Ct. 844, 25 L. Ed. 2d 174] (1970), which is reserved

for laws 'directed to legitimate local concerns, with effects upon interstate commerce

that are only incidental."' Id. at 346 (quoting City ofPhiladelphia, 437 U.S. at 624).

Under the Pike test, a nondiscriminatory state statute remains valid unless the burden

it imposes on interstate commerce is "'clearly excessive in relation to the putative

local benefits."' I d. (quoting Pike, 397 U.S. at 142).

Filo Foods contends that Proposition 1 discriminates on its face against

interstate commerce. That is so, Filo Foods contends, because Proposition 1