[Ch. 6.  THE SCOPE OF STATE POWER

[4. Implied Restrictions of the Commerce Clause]

D. Preserving State-Owned Resources for In-State Use

• REEVES, INC. V. STAKE, p. 339 (1980). State-owned cement plant
• is the state regulating transactions, or acting as a party to them?
• if the latter, why should it matter to the constitutionality of its action?
• are states and private enterprises really comparable when they participate in

          a market?
• WHITE V. MASSACHUSETTS COUNCIL OF CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS, p. 344 (1983). City-funded public works projects, local-resident hiring quotas
• what transactions are being regulated?
• is the city a party to those transactions, or a mere regulator?
• what is the relevance of the involvement of federal funds in the projects covered by the city's order?
• South-Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke, p. 346 (1984).
• What transactions are being regulated by the challenged state action?
• In the regulated transactions, is the state a buyer or seller of goods or services?
• Would the case be different if the state had required, as a condition of the right to purchase state-owned timber, that the purchaser already have a processing facility within the state? If so, why?
• Would the case have been different, if the federal government had approved the particular condition attached to the sale?
• New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, p. 347 (1988): does a state "participate in the market" for purposes of this rule, when it provides a tax exemption in lieu of a direct subsidy to a particular local industry?
• Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Harrison, p. 348 (1997): what is it about this

tax exemption that makes it a “poor candidate” for the market participant doctrine?