| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | The state of SD makes a cement plant, and surplus cement is sold to other states (about 40% of the output). Reeves is a buyer from WY. Then there is some slowing of production plus a construction boom: cement shortage. SD decides to supply SD customers first, to the detriment of out-of-state customers. |
| Posture: | Suit for injunctive relief. |
| Issue: | Is this preferential treatment for SD customers violative of dormant commerce clause protections? |
| Holding: | No. |
| Rule: | SD is a market participant, and the commerce clause is mostly about taxes and regulatory measures. |
| Reasoning: | Basically just that this is like Alexandria Scrap, where MD penalized out-of-state car junkers. States can act as market participants-- all are free to do so. There's nothing in the constitution that suggests states should be limited in this respect, and the court should use restraint when intruding on this area of state sovereignty. |
| Dicta: | Dissent: the creation of a free national economy was one of the main reasons for ratifying the constitution, and letting states get away with this kind of thing flies in the face of that goal. |