Given that we’re deep into law school exam periods, here’s today’s question (“snatched,” as they say, “from today’s headlines”):
The State of Arizona, you may assume, has passed controversial legislation regarding the legal status of immigrants in the State. The City Council of Los Angeles, protesting the impact of the Arizona law, declares that it will no longer do business with companies headquartered or otherwise doing business out of Arizona. Your boss, the mayor of L.A., has asked for a memo discussing possible constitutional objections to this measure.
Too easy? Perhaps. I wouldn’t think that the “dormant commerce clause,” which prohibits discriminatory measures taken by one State (or municipality within a State) against another, could countenance this. But maybe I’m missing something?
[Thanks to Rochelle Keyhan for the pointer]
[And thanks to commenters who referred me to the “market participant” exception to the dormant commerce clause — I had indeed forgotten about that, and it probably would have applicability here to shield LA’s actions/DGP]
[And finally, Jason Arvak over at the Moderate Voice has some interesting comments on this issue]