maine v. taylor

maine v. taylor - Reasoning: The Court said that, Maine's...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
-1Courtney Smith Randy DeJesus Katie Maine v. Taylor Brief Facts: A law in Maine, enacted to protect the State’s fisheries from parasites and non-native species, prohibited the import of live baitfish. The Defendant operated a bait business in Maine and imported live bait called “golden shiners” against federal law. The federal law made it a crime to import, receive or purchase in interstate commerce any fish possessed in violation of State law. The Defendant said this was unconstitutional. Issues: Does the Maine law unconstitutionally inconvenience interstate commerce, violating the Commerce Clause? No.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Reasoning: The Court said that, Maine's ban on the importation of live baitfish served a legitimate local purpose that could not sufficiently be served by available nondiscriminatory options. The Court disagreed that the ban wasnt an easy case of "arbitrary discrimination against interstate commerce". Holding: Ruling was 8 to 1. Limiting forced by the Commerce Clause on state regulatory power was not a solution and that the States "retained authority under their general police powers to regulate matters of 'legitimate local concern....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/19/2011 for the course PSCI 4200 taught by Professor Kimmyking during the Fall '10 term at North Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online