Opinion ID: 3046278
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Two-Tiered Analysis

Text: Laws challenged under the dormant Commerce Clause are examined using a two-tiered analysis. First, we consider whether the law or regulation “directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce, or has the effect of favoring in-state economic interests.” Island Silver & Spice, Inc. v. Islamorada, 542 F.3d 844, 846 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Discrimination against interstate commerce in favor of local business or investment is per se invalid, save in a narrow class of cases in which the municipality can demonstrate, under rigorous scrutiny, that it has no other means to advance a legitimate local interest.” Carbone, 511 U.S. at 392, 114 S. Ct. at 1683. “The central rationale for the rule against discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose object is local economic protectionism . . . .” Id. at 390, 114 S. Ct. at 1682. Second, if the law or regulation advances a legitimate local interest and has only “indirect effects on interstate commerce,” we apply the balancing test from Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 90 S. Ct. 844 (1970), and invalidate the 24 Case: 11-10475 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 25 of 81 law only if “the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds the local benefits.” Island Silver & Spice, 542 F.3d at 846 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the two ways a law can violate the dormant Commerce Clause are (1) by discriminating against interstate commerce or (2) by unduly burdening interstate commerce. We next explain in more detail the ways in which a state or local law discriminates against interstate commerce.