Good luck because this isn’t happening.
The Dormant Commerce Clause and its Purpose:
The Dormant Commerce Clause is a principle derived from the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). This clause grants Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several States.” Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that states can’t enact laws that unfairly burden interstate commerce, even if they apply equally within their borders.
The Dormant Commerce Clause prevents states from creating economic barriers between each other and ensures a national marketplace.
How the Sonar Ban Could Violate the Dormant Commerce Clause:
There are two main ways a Wisconsin ban on forward-facing sonar could be challenged under the Dormant Commerce Clause:
Discriminatory Effect:
Even if the ban applies to everyone in Wisconsin, it could be discriminatory if it disproportionately impacts out-of-state businesses.
For instance, imagine the forward-facing sonar industry is primarily outside Wisconsin. A ban on this equipment could unfairly burden these out-of-state companies by limiting their market and potentially leading to job losses.
The law would have to be analyzed to see if it specifically targets out-of-state businesses or products, but even an even-handed law could be challenged if it disproportionately impacts interstate commerce.
Undue Burden on Interstate Commerce:
A state law can be challenged if it creates an undue burden on interstate commerce, regardless of whether it discriminates against out-of-state businesses.
Here’s how this might play out in the sonar ban scenario:
The state of Wisconsin would argue that the ban is necessary to conserve fish populations, a legitimate state interest.
Opponents of the ban would likely argue that it’s an excessive restriction on interstate commerce for several reasons:
The high cost of sonar might already prevent many in-state anglers from affording it, so the ban wouldn’t necessarily level the playing field.
There might be alternative fishing methods that don’t require sonar, making a complete ban unnecessary.
The sonar industry would likely argue that the ban hurts their business and restricts the free flow of goods (sonar equipment) across state lines.
Courts would consider these arguments and weigh the state’s interest in protecting fish against the burden placed on interstate commerce. The ban could be struck down if the burden is deemed excessive compared to the state’s interest.
Examples of Similar Cases:
There have been past Supreme Court cases that illustrate the Dormant Commerce Clause in action:
Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc. (1931): A New York law that favored in-state dairy farmers was found to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminated against out-of-state milk producers.
CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America (1982): An Indiana law that required a certain percentage of a company’s board of directors to be Indiana residents was struck down because it placed an undue burden on interstate commerce by making it more difficult for companies to merge or acquire out-of-state businesses. Good Luck! It isn’t happening!
