Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Toomer v. Witsell

United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, three-judge district court · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPrivileges and ImmunitiesEqual ProtectionDormant Commerce ClauseState Police PowerTerritorial WatersFisheries Regulationthree-mile maritime belt

Facts

Plaintiffs operated shrimp boats off the coasts of several southeastern states and fished within and beyond South Carolina's three-mile maritime belt, though not in South Carolina inland waters. South Carolina law treated its coastal and inland waters as a common for the state's people, charged resident-owned shrimp boats a $25 annual license fee and nonresident-owned boats a $2,500 fee, with a limited exception for certain prior operators, imposed a tax of one-eighth cent per pound on green shrimp taken or canned, shucked, or shipped for market, and required licensed shrimp boats to unload, pack, and stamp shrimp before shipping it to another state. Violations carried criminal penalties, and plaintiffs alleged that paying the nonresident license fees or ceasing to fish in South Carolina waters would cause substantial business loss. Plaintiffs argued that South Carolina lacked jurisdiction over the coastal waters, discriminated unlawfully against nonresidents, and burdened imports and interstate commerce.

Issue

May South Carolina, absent conflicting federal action, regulate shrimp fishing within its three-mile maritime belt by imposing substantially higher license fees on nonresident boat owners and requiring shrimp to be unloaded, packed, and stamped before interstate shipment? Do those statutes violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Commerce Clause?

Rule

Absent affirmative conflicting action by the federal government, a coastal state may exercise police power over fishing within its territorial waters in the three-mile maritime belt. Because fish in those waters are treated as property held by the state for the benefit of its inhabitants, the state may reserve the fishery for residents, exact higher license fees from nonresidents, and impose nondiscriminatory taxes and reasonable packing or stamping requirements related to conservation, product regulation, or prevention of tax evasion, so long as interstate transportation has not commenced and the regulation is not an unreasonable interference with commerce.

🔒

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 enacts a statute regulating commercial squid harvesting within three nautical miles of its Pacific coast. A Washington boat owner challenges the law, arguing Oregon lacks authority over those coastal waters because Congress has not enacted any squid-specific statute.

Under the majority opinion's reasoning, which is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority held that, absent conflicting federal action, a coastal state may exercise police power over fishing within its territorial waters in the three-mile maritime belt. The opinion distinguished federal claims to offshore oil from state regulation of fisheries and treated the latter as remaining with the states unless Congress affirmatively takes control. (Derived from Toomer v. Witsell (n.d.).)