B. Requiring Business Operations to be Performed in the Home State

• C. & A. CARBONE, INC. V. CLARKSTOWN, p. 312 (1994)
• what is the local regulation and what are its purposes?
• does it expressly treat in-state and out-of-state interests differently?
• how does its classification relate to its claimed legitimate purposes?
• who bears the cost of the regulation, and who receives its benefits? Should such an analysis be determinative of its constitutionality?
• compare Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., p. 311 (1970), cited in Carbone: state requires multi-state cantaloupe grower to package concededly superior-quality Arizona fruit in the state, rather than at its existing packaging plant in California, where the only effect would be to assure that the fruit is labeled as Arizona fruit; held unacceptable burden not justified by "tenuous" state interest in getting credit for superior fruit
• Is Carbone distinguishable from Dean Milk (milk-pasteurization w/n 5 miles)?
 
C. Preserving Resources for In-State Consumption
• CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY, p. 322 (1978)
• what is the local regulation and what are its purposes?
• does it expressly treat in-state and out-of-state interests differently?
• why can't the state treat the landfills as scarce natural resources, and preserve them for the use of its own citizens?
• how does its classification relate to its legitimate purposes?
• what role does "motive" play in the court's analysis?
• MAINE V. TAYLOR, p. 332 (1986)
• What is the state regulation?
• does it facially discriminate against out-of-state interests, in favor of local ones?
• does it have a discriminatory purpose?
• does it have a discriminatory effect?
• does it impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce?
• how does this case differ from City of Philadelphia as an embargo against out-of-state imports?
• what alternative means might have been used to protect the state's interests?
• Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Harrison, p. 334 (1997).
• Is not-for-profit activity outside the scope of the dormant commerce clause?
• Did the state statute facially discriminate against out-of-state interests, in favor of
          local ones?  What interests?
• Did it have a non-discriminatory purpose?  A legitimate discriminatory purpose?
• Suppose the evidence showed that none of the burden of the property tax was
          passed on to the campers.  Would that change the result?  Why?