''South-Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke'', 467 U.S. 82 (1984), was a
United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
case in which the Court held unconstitutional Alaska's inclusion of a requirement that purchasers of state-owned timber process it within state before it was shipped out of state. According to a plurality opinion by
Justice White, Alaska could not impose "downstream" conditions in the timber-processing market as a result of its ownership of the timber itself. The opinion summarized "
helimit of the market-participant doctrine" as "allowing a State to impose burdens on commerce within the market in which it is a participant, but
ogo no further. The State may not impose conditions
hat
A hat is a head covering which is worn for various reasons, including protection against weather conditions, ceremonial reasons such as university graduation, religious reasons, safety, or as a fashion accessory. Hats which incorporate mecha ...
have a substantial regulatory effect outside of that particular market."
Case Facts
The
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources is a department within the government of Alaska in the United States of America. The department has the mission of responsibly developing Alaska's resources by making them available for maximum use and ...
published a notice stating it would be selling timber owned by the State of Alaska. The State acted as a market participant by including a provision in a contract of sale that required all purchasers of the State's timber to partially process the timber before shipping any of it out of Alaska. The South-Central Timber Development, Inc. contended saying the provision violated th
commerce clause The corporation normally purchases timber and ships it elsewhere to be processed. Th
found that Congress had authorized the State of Alaska's processing requirement in the sale contract.
Issue and Rule
The issue in question was whether the State of Alaska's restriction on processing was, in fact, exempt from the commerce clause because of the "market-participant
" doctrine. The court held that it was not exempt. However, the dissenting opinion was that the State of Alaska was only paying the purchaser of timber indirectly to hire residents to process the timber, which would not be a violation of the commerce clause.
References
External links
* ''Commerce clause''. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause
*''South-central timber development, Inc. v. Wunnicke''. (2009, September 1). Casebriefs , Law Cases & Case Briefs for Students.
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/federal-limits-on-state-power-to-regulate-the-national-economy/south-central-timber-development-inc-v-wunnicke/
*''South-central timber v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984)''. (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/82/
*
*
{{USArticleI
United States Constitution Article One case law
United States Dormant Commerce Clause case law
United States Supreme Court cases
1984 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
Timber industry
Legal history of Alaska