Misplaced Pages

Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp)

1976 United States Supreme Court case
Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 21, 1976
Decided June 24, 1976
Full case nameHarry R. Hughes, Secretary of Transportation of Maryland, et al.
v. Alexandria Scrap Corporation
Citations426 U.S. 794 (more)96 S. Ct. 2488; 49 L. Ed. 2d 220; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 136
Case history
PriorAlexandria Scrap Corp. v. Hughes, 391 F. Supp. 46 (D. Md. 1975); probable jurisdiction noted, 423 U.S. 819 (1975).
Holding
The Maryland statute does not constitute an impermissible burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blacknum, Rehnquist, Stevens
ConcurrenceStevens
DissentBrennan, joined by White, Marshall

Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794 (1976), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Maryland created a program that, 1) purchased junked cars, 2) paid a bounty for those with Maryland license plates and, 3) imposed more stringent documentation requirements on out-of-state processors, in an effort to reduce the number of abandoned cars in Maryland.

The Issue before the Court is whether such a program violates the Dormant Commerce Clause—essentially, whether Maryland could Constitutionally discriminate or burden interstate commerce by imposing more stringent documentation requirements on out-of-state processors or favoring in-state car dealerships when they purchase junk cars.

Unlike previous Dormant Commerce Clause cases, Maryland was acting like a market participant (as opposed to a state regulator). In such instances, the Court determined that a state actor can favor its own citizens over the foreign citizens.

This case created the "market participant" exception to the general restrictions on states imposed by the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Determining when a state is acting like a "market participant" rather than as a regulator was not decided by this case, but found in South Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke.

See also

References

  1. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794 (1976).
  2. South Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984).

External links

U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law
Enumeration Clause of Section II
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III
Elections Clause of Section IV
Speech or Debate Clause of Section VI
Origination Clause of Section VII
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Taxing and Spending Clause of Section VIII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Copyright Act of 1976
Other copyright cases
Other patent cases
Other trademark cases
Necessary and Proper Clause of Section VIII
Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX
Contract Clause of Section X
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Import-Export Clause of Section X
Compact Clause of Section X


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

Categories: