Which case is associated with the Dormant Commerce Clause and the regulation of local activities affecting interstate commerce, such as river navigation licensing?

Which case is associated with the Dormant Commerce Clause and the regulation of local activities affecting interstate commerce, such as river navigation licensing?

• A. Gonzales v. Raich
• B. Cooley v. Board of Wardens
• C. Wickard v. Filburn
• D. United States v. Morrison

Answer: (B)

The Dormant Commerce Clause allows states to regulate local activities that affect interstate commerce only when there is no uniform federal rule addressing that activity. Cooley v. Board of Wardens is the classic case that shows this balance in action. The Court held that Pennsylvania could require ships to hire a local pilot for navigation on the Delaware River even though it touched interstate commerce, because there was no single national pilotage rule in place and the regulation served a legitimate local interest—safety and local knowledge of river conditions. The decision rejects an absolutist view that any local regulation touching interstate commerce is unconstitutional, instead endorsing a pragmatic approach: if Congress hasn’t spoken and the state regulation addresses a local concern without creating an undue burden on interstate commerce, it can stand. This is why the case is tied to the Dormant Commerce Clause and to regulating local activities—like river navigation licensing—that have interstate effects. The other listed cases involve different questions about federal power over commerce or criminal law, not this local-regulation-without-federal-uniform-rule scenario.

The Dormant Commerce Clause allows states to regulate local activities that affect interstate commerce only when there is no uniform federal rule addressing that activity. Cooley v. Board of Wardens is the classic case that shows this balance in action. The Court held that Pennsylvania could require ships to hire a local pilot for navigation on the Delaware River even though it touched interstate commerce, because there was no single national pilotage rule in place and the regulation served a legitimate local interest—safety and local knowledge of river conditions. The decision rejects an absolutist view that any local regulation touching interstate commerce is unconstitutional, instead endorsing a pragmatic approach: if Congress hasn’t spoken and the state regulation addresses a local concern without creating an undue burden on interstate commerce, it can stand. This is why the case is tied to the Dormant Commerce Clause and to regulating local activities—like river navigation licensing—that have interstate effects. The other listed cases involve different questions about federal power over commerce or criminal law, not this local-regulation-without-federal-uniform-rule scenario.