Arizona Train Limits Case Study
Facts: The Arizona Train Limit Law of 1912 prohibited trains that could carry fourteen passengers or had more than seventy freight cars as a safety measure. Then Southern Pacific Company said that this law violated the Commerce Clause.
Statute: Arizona Train Limit Law
Constitutional Provision: Commerce Clause
Legal Question: Does the Arizona Train Limit Law violate the Commerce Clause?
Legal Reasoning (J. Stone):
• States don’t have the authority to substantially inhibit the flow of commerce and where the need for national uniformity in laws. o These laws demand that the regulation be done at the national level.
• This case lies between two issues of needing national regulation and needing a local police force. o This cases calls for a
balancing of the states and federal interests. o The findings show that there is an increase in safety but it is small if there is any at all.
• The regulation of the length of trains must be done consistently for efficiency. o The Arizona State Law is a substantial burden on commerce since it has a need for consistency, and it doesn’t have an acceptable police justification.
Holding/Outcome: The Court said that even though the Commerce Clause discussed the national government regulating commerce and its possession of the power, it didn’t exclude all state power of regulation.
Doctrine: The dormant Commerce Clause gives Congress power over interstate commerce which means states can’t discriminate against interstate commerce nor can the excessively load interstate commerce, even if there is an absence of federal legislation regulating the activity.
Statute: Arizona Train Limit Law
Constitutional Provision: Commerce Clause
Legal Question: Does the Arizona Train Limit Law violate the Commerce Clause?
Legal Reasoning (J. Stone):
• States don’t have the authority to substantially inhibit the flow of commerce and where the need for national uniformity in laws. o These laws demand that the regulation be done at the national level.
• This case lies between two issues of needing national regulation and needing a local police force. o This cases calls for a
balancing of the states and federal interests. o The findings show that there is an increase in safety but it is small if there is any at all.
• The regulation of the length of trains must be done consistently for efficiency. o The Arizona State Law is a substantial burden on commerce since it has a need for consistency, and it doesn’t have an acceptable police justification.
Holding/Outcome: The Court said that even though the Commerce Clause discussed the national government regulating commerce and its possession of the power, it didn’t exclude all state power of regulation.
Doctrine: The dormant Commerce Clause gives Congress power over interstate commerce which means states can’t discriminate against interstate commerce nor can the excessively load interstate commerce, even if there is an absence of federal legislation regulating the activity.