Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59, 10 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

68

HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. v. LYONS

Opinion of Thomas, J.

Justice Thomas, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that 144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U. S. C. 7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 66. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually un-workable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U. S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

Last modified: October 4, 2007