BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 13 (1996)

Page:   Index   Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Cite as: 517 U. S. 559 (1996)

Opinion of the Court

But while we do not doubt that Congress has ample authority to enact such a policy for the entire Nation,15 it is clear

that no single State could do so, or even impose its own policy choice on neighboring States. See Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592, 594 (1881) ("No State can legislate except with reference to its own jurisdiction. . . . Each State is independent of all the others in this particular").16 Similarly, one State's power to impose burdens on the interstate market for automobiles is not only subordinate to the federal power over interstate commerce, Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 194-196 (1824), but is also constrained by the need to respect the interests of other States, see, e. g., Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U. S. 324, 335-336 (1989) (the Constitution has a "special concern both with the maintenance of a national economic union unfettered by state-imposed limitations on

15 Federal disclosure requirements are, of course, a familiar part of our law. See, e. g., the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 2353, 21 U. S. C. 343; the Truth In Lending Act, 82 Stat. 148, as amended, 15 U. S. C. 1604; the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 892, 894, as amended, 15 U. S. C. 78l-78m; Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 79 Stat. 283, as amended, 15 U. S. C. 1333; Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 4519, 27 U. S. C. 215.

16 See also Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809, 824 (1975) ("A State does not acquire power or supervision over the internal affairs of another State merely because the welfare and health of its own citizens may be affected when they travel to that State"); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 U. S. 149, 161 (1914) ("[I]t would be impossible to permit the statutes of Missouri to operate beyond the jurisdiction of that State . . . without throwing down the constitutional barriers by which all the States are restricted within the orbits of their lawful authority and upon the preservation of which the Government under the Constitution depends. This is so obviously the necessary result of the Constitution that it has rarely been called in question and hence authorities directly dealing with it do not abound"); Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 669 (1892) ("Laws have no force of themselves beyond the jurisdiction of the State which enacts them, and can have extra-territorial effect only by the comity of other States").


Page:   Index   Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007