Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.
49 L. Ed. 2d 220, 426 U.S. 794, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 136 (1976)
Rule of Law:
When a state acts as a participant in the market, rather than as a market regulator, the dormant Commerce Clause does not prohibit it from favoring its own citizens over out-of-state economic interests.
Facts:
- To address the problem of abandoned automobiles, Maryland enacted a statute offering a cash bounty to scrap processors for each Maryland-titled vehicle they destroyed.
- Originally, the statute allowed anyone in possession of an inoperable vehicle over eight years old ('hulk') to transfer it to a processor for a bounty without any documentation of title.
- Alexandria Scrap Corp., a Virginia-based processor, was licensed under the Maryland program and processed a significant number of hulks from Maryland sources.
- In 1974, Maryland amended the statute to require documentation for hulks.
- Under the amendment, Maryland-based processors could claim a bounty on a hulk by submitting a simple indemnity agreement from the supplier.
- Out-of-state processors, like Alexandria Scrap Corp., were required to submit more burdensome documentation, such as a certificate of title or a police certificate, to receive the same bounty.
- This change made it more financially advantageous for suppliers of hulks to deliver them to in-state processors, causing a sharp decline in the number of Maryland hulks delivered to Alexandria Scrap Corp.
Procedural Posture:
- Alexandria Scrap Corp. filed a complaint against Maryland officials in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The case was heard by a three-judge District Court.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Alexandria Scrap Corp.
- The District Court found that the 1974 amendment violated both the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause and enjoined Maryland from enforcing the provision that restricted indemnity agreements to in-state processors.
- Maryland (appellant) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Maryland statute that provides bounties for the destruction of abandoned vehicles, but imposes more stringent documentation requirements on out-of-state scrap processors than on in-state processors, violate the Commerce Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
No, the Maryland statute does not violate the Commerce Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. A state is not prohibited from participating in the market and favoring its own citizens. The common thread in prior Commerce Clause cases is that the state interfered with the natural functioning of the market through prohibition or burdensome regulation. Here, Maryland has not prohibited the flow of hulks or regulated the conditions of their movement; it has entered the market as a purchaser to bid up their price. The Commerce Clause was not intended to prevent a state from using its own funds to favor its residents. Furthermore, the statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the distinction between in-state and out-of-state processors bears a rational relationship to Maryland's legitimate purpose of using its limited funds to clean up its own environment, as it is rational to assume hulks processed in-state are more likely to have been abandoned in-state.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes, the Maryland statute violates the Commerce Clause. The Court's creation of a new, categorical exception for states acting as 'market participants' ignores well-established principles that require balancing state interests against the burden on interstate commerce. This statute establishes an economic barrier against competition from other states, which the Commerce Clause forbids. The state's action is aimed at requiring the relocation of industry within its borders, a practice this Court has previously viewed with particular suspicion. The Court should have applied the traditional balancing test from Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. and remanded the case for the development of a factual record to determine if Maryland's legitimate local interests could be served by less discriminatory alternatives.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stevens
No, the Maryland statute does not violate the Commerce Clause. This case is unique because the interstate commerce allegedly 'burdened' by Maryland would not exist but for the state's subsidy program. Maryland artificially created a market for these hulks with its own funds. Since the state created the commerce, it is free to define the terms of its participation, including limiting the benefits to in-state businesses. A state’s failure to subsidize out-of-state businesses is not an impermissible 'burden' on commerce because the Commerce Clause does not obligate a state to create or subsidize interstate commerce in the first place.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the 'market participant doctrine,' a major exception to the dormant Commerce Clause. The decision distinguishes between a state acting as a regulator, where its actions are subject to Commerce Clause scrutiny, and a state acting as a participant (e.g., buyer, seller, or subsidizer), where it may favor its own residents without violating the Commerce Clause. This doctrine grants states considerable latitude to use their spending power to benefit local economies, even if it has protectionist effects on interstate commerce. The ruling provides a crucial framework for analyzing state procurement statutes, subsidy programs, and the operation of state-owned businesses.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"