Yes, this law is unconstitutional. The Court said Maine's law is openly unfair to businesses that serve people from other states. It's like the state is trying to build an economic wall to keep business local. It doesn't matter that the camp is a nonprofit; nonprofits are still part of the national economy and are protected by the same rules. A state can't use its tax code to punish organizations for serving a national clientele.

No, this law should be perfectly legal. The dissenters argued that the whole point of the tax break was to reward charities for helping the state take care of its own citizens. A charity helping Maine kids is doing something different than one helping out-of-state kids, so it's fair to treat them differently. This isn't about hurting national business; it's about the state choosing how to spend its money to help its own community.

No, the law is fine, but the Court used the wrong part of the Constitution to decide the case. He argued that the 'dormant Commerce Clause' idea the court uses isn't actually written in the Constitution. Another part, the 'Import-Export Clause,' should be used for these types of cases. Under that clause, this simple property tax would be completely acceptable.

Yes, it's not okay. The Maine tax rule is unfair because it makes camps that help kids from other states pay more. This goes against the idea that states shouldn't make rules that are bad for business between states, and there's a special part of the law, the dormant Commerce Clause, that says so.

No, it's okay. The tax break is meant to help local charities that help the state's own people. The court shouldn't stop the state from doing that, and it's not really about business between states. Plus, the part of the law they're using to say it's not okay doesn't really make sense and isn't written down anywhere.

No, it's okay. The tax is on land, which doesn't move between states, so it shouldn't be controlled by rules about business between states. The court is overstepping by using those rules here, and there's a lot of debate about whether this part of the law they're using even should exist.

No, it's not okay. The Maine tax rule is unfair because it makes camps that help kids from other states pay more. This goes against the idea that states shouldn't make rules that are bad for business between states, and there's a special part of the law, the dormant Commerce Clause, that says so.

Yes, it's okay. The tax break is meant to help local charities that help the state's own people. The court shouldn't stop the state from doing that, and it's not really about business between states. Plus, the part of the law they're using to say it's not okay doesn't really make sense and isn't written down anywhere.

Yes, it's okay. The tax is on land, which doesn't move between states, so it shouldn't be controlled by rules about business between states. The court is overstepping by using those rules here, and there's a lot of debate about whether this part of the law they're using even should exist.

Maine provided a complete property and personal tax exemption for charitable organizations incorporated in the state but only if they did not operate principally for the benefit of non-residents.

Although the Commerce Clause speaks only of Congress's power, it has long been understood that there is a dormant or negative aspect of the Commerce Clause that limits the power of the states to regulate commerce.

And the Court has repeatedly stated that Congress can authorize state action that would otherwise violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.

The Supreme Court has long held that movement of persons across state lines is sufficient to permit congressional regulation under the Commerce Clause.

" `[T] he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application

—the court found that an exemption from state property tax for property owned by charitable institutions, which excluded from the exemption organizations operated principally for the benefit of nonresidents, violated the commerce clause.

—ur negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence has taken us well beyond the invalidation of obviously discriminatory taxes on interstate commerce. We have used the Clause to make policy-laden judgments that we are ill equipped and arguably unauthorized to make. In so doing, we have developed multifactor tests in order to assess the perceived `effect'any particular …

Our decisions on this point reflect, upon fullest consideration, the course of adjudication unbroken through the Nation's history.

Specifically, the City asserts that although many pregnancy centers operate as non-profits, they effectively engage in commerce by offering pregnancy testing, sonograms, and options counseling, "all of which have commercial value, garnering payments and fees in the marketplace." Appellants Br. at 16

However, the Supreme Court has stated that the market participation doctrine " `differentiates between a State's acting in its distinctive governmental capacity, and a State's acting in the more general capacity of a market participant; only the former is subject to the limitations of the Commerce Clause

Yes, a state property tax law that denies an exemption to charitable institutions operating principally for the benefit of non-residents violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The Maine statute is facially discriminatory because it expressly distinguishes between entities that serve a principally interstate clientele and those that primarily serve an intrastate market, penalizing the former and rewarding the latter. This discrimination impermissibly burdens interstate commerce by creating an incentive for entities to limit their out-of-state clientele and functionally serves as an export tariff on services provided to out-of-state consumers. The Court reasoned that the dormant Commerce Clause applies to nonprofit organizations just as it does to for-profit enterprises, as nonprofits are significant participants in interstate markets. The Court also rejected arguments that the tax exemption was a permissible subsidy or an action of the state as a 'market participant,' holding that a discriminatory tax exemption is a form of state regulation subject to Commerce Clause limitations.

No, the Maine tax exemption does not violate the Commerce Clause. The law is a narrow provision designed to subsidize charities that relieve the state of its public welfare burden of caring for its own residents. For the purpose of receiving this state subsidy, charities primarily serving Maine residents are not similarly situated to those primarily serving non-residents, and therefore the law is not facially discriminatory. Even if it were discriminatory, the law is justified by a legitimate local purpose—encouraging charity for the state's own inhabitants—that is unrelated to economic protectionism. The principle that a state may limit its welfare benefits to its own residents is well-established and should extend to indirect benefits like tax exemptions for charitable organizations that serve those residents.

No, the Maine tax is constitutional. The Court's negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence has no textual basis in the Constitution, is unworkable, and should be abandoned. The proper constitutional provision to analyze discriminatory state taxes is the Import-Export Clause, which prohibits states from laying imposts or duties on imports or exports. The Maine law at issue is a real estate property tax, which is a direct tax on property, not an 'impost' or 'duty' on goods moving in commerce. Therefore, even under the correct constitutional framework, Maine's generally applicable property tax and its associated exemption would not be prohibited.

Yes. The Maine statute facially discriminates against interstate commerce and is all but per se invalid. It imposes a higher tax burden on camps serving mostly nonresidents, penalizing out-of-state consumers and burdening interstate commerce. This discrimination is contrary to the Commerce Clause's purpose of preventing economic protectionism among states. The dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, which has been long understood and consistently applied, supports this conclusion.

No. The tax exemption serves a legitimate local purpose by encouraging charities to focus on local concerns, which does not violate the Commerce Clause. The majority's reliance on the dormant Commerce Clause is criticized as lacking textual basis, making little sense, and being unworkable in application. The decision to strike down the tax exemption oversteps the Court's authority and improperly extends the reach of the dormant Commerce Clause.

No. The tax on real property should not be subject to the Commerce Clause's restrictions, and the majority's decision improperly extends the dormant Commerce Clause's reach. The Import-Export Clause, not the dormant Commerce Clause, should govern the constitutionality of state taxes on interstate commerce. The negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence has led the Court beyond invalidating obviously discriminatory taxes and into making policy-laden judgments outside of its expertise and authority.

No. A state property tax exemption that excludes charitable institutions primarily serving nonresidents does not violate the Commerce Clause. The tax exemption serves a legitimate local purpose by encouraging charities to focus on local concerns. The majority's reliance on the dormant Commerce Clause lacks textual basis, makes little sense, and is unworkable in application. The decision to strike down the tax exemption oversteps the Court's authority and improperly extends the reach of the dormant Commerce Clause.

No. A state property tax exemption that excludes charitable institutions primarily serving nonresidents does not violate the Commerce Clause. The tax on real property should not be subject to the Commerce Clause's restrictions, and the majority's decision improperly extends the dormant Commerce Clause's reach. The Import-Export Clause, not the dormant Commerce Clause, should govern the constitutionality of state taxes on interstate commerce. The negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence has led the Court beyond invalidating obviously discriminatory taxes and into making policy-laden judgments outside of its expertise and authority.

Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot