Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDormant Commerce ClauseMarket Participant DoctrineForeign Commercedormant Commerce Clausemarket participantmarket regulatorcongressional authorization

Facts

Alaska offered for sale about 49 million board-feet of timber from the Icy Cape area and required by contract that the successful bidder perform primary manufacture within Alaska before shipping the timber out of state. The requirement applied only to timber owned by the State and was intended to protect existing industries, encourage new industries, derive revenue from timber resources, and manage forests on a sustained-yield basis; the State also charged a lower price when the requirement was imposed. South-Central Timber Development was an Alaska corporation that bought standing timber, logged it, and exported unprocessed logs, mostly to Japan, but did not operate a mill in Alaska. When Alaska imposed the requirement on the Icy Cape sale, South-Central sued to enjoin enforcement.

Issue

Whether Congress authorized Alaska's in-state primary-manufacture requirement for timber taken from state lands so as to insulate it from dormant Commerce Clause review, and if not, whether the requirement was saved by the market-participant doctrine or was instead invalid under the Commerce Clause.

Rule

Congress may permit states to regulate commerce in ways that would otherwise violate the dormant Commerce Clause, but congressional intent to do so must be unmistakably clear and cannot be inferred merely from a parallel federal policy. The market-participant doctrine allows a state to impose burdens on commerce only within the market in which it is a participant; it may not impose conditions that have a substantial regulatory effect downstream in a separate market. State laws requiring in-state processing of goods before export are subject to particular suspicion and are virtually per se invalid when they block the flow of interstate commerce at the state's borders, especially where foreign commerce is burdened.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon sells gravel from state-owned riverbeds to private buyers. Each sales contract requires the buyer to crush the gravel in Oregon before shipping it to Idaho or abroad. Oregon argues Congress has authorized the rule because federal regulations impose similar in-state crushing requirements on gravel removed from nearby federal lands in the Pacific Northwest.

If a buyer challenges Oregon's requirement under the dormant Commerce Clause, what is the strongest response to Oregon's authorization argument?

Explanation. Congress may permit state burdens on commerce that otherwise would violate the dormant Commerce Clause, but congressional intent must be unmistakably clear. The majority rejected the idea that a state may infer authorization merely from a parallel federal policy governing federal property. Federal treatment of federal lands does not itself show congressional approval of similar burdens on state-owned resources.