[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_rZjCmUBEHftE91DeNru5KqLSSaOmvYzpnCjBdzKdLqM.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000073","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/1\/essays\/74\/import-export-clause\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EImport-Export Clause\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n Article I, Section 10, Clause 2\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n \n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENo State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n \n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EA primary concern of the Framers of the Constitution was ending the interstate commercial depredations that had occurred during the Confederation period. Thus, the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate, foreign, and Indian commerce. The Framers also took care to place restrictions on state power under the new government. Often, the restrictions in Article I, Section 10 mirror the powers granted to Congress. Evidence from the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates suggest that the Framers intended the Import-Export Clause to complement congressional power to raise revenue and regulate interstate commerce by restricting the states\u2019 ability to tax commerce entering and leaving their borders.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIndeed, the clause was likely understood originally to encompass domestic, as well as foreign, imports and exports. During the Convention, James Madison opposed allowing states to tax imports to protect native industries. Such protections would \u201c[require] duties not only on imports directly from foreign Countries, but from the other States in the Union, which would revive all the mischiefs experienced from the want of a Gen[era]l Government over commerce.\u201d Opponents of ratification often complained of the restrictions placed on states by the new constitution and proposed that only their powers to tax and regulate foreign commerce be restricted.\u003Cbr\u003E\n\u003Cbr\u003E\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s early interpretations of the clause confirmed this interpretation. In \u003Cem\u003EBrown v. Maryland\u003C\/em\u003E (1827), Chief Justice John Marshall assumed that the clause applied \u201cequally to importations from a sister State\u201d as well as to foreign imports. In \u003Cem\u003EAlmy v. California\u003C\/em\u003E (1861), the Court held that the clause prohibited California from taxing gold exported to New York. In \u003Cem\u003EWoodruff v. Parham\u003C\/em\u003E (1869), however, the Court concluded that the \u201cImports or Exports\u201d referred to in the clause referred only to foreign imports and exports. In reaching that conclusion, how-ever, the Court made no analysis of the original understanding, and declared that Chief Justice John Marshall was in error in \u003Cem\u003EBrown v. Maryland\u003C\/em\u003E. In fact, the \u003Cem\u003EWoodruff\u003C\/em\u003E opinion recharacterized Chief Justice Roger B. Taney\u2019s Almy opinion as a \u201cdormant\u201d Commerce Clause opinion, though it clearly was not. Nonetheless, the Import-Export Clause has been almost completely subsumed by the Court\u2019s Dormant Foreign Commerce Clause doctrine.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe only issue in Supreme Court jurisprudence that sets the Import-Export Clause apart is whether the state tax \u201cdivert[s] import revenues from the federal government to the states,\u201d \u003Cem\u003EMichelin Tire Corp. v. Wages\u003C\/em\u003E (1976). Subsequent cases addressed when domestic goods became \u201cExports\u201d or when foreign goods ceased being \u201cImports\u201d and thus subject to state taxation. \u003Cem\u003ESee, e.g., Kosydar v. National Cash Register\u003C\/em\u003E (1974) (discussing when goods become \u201cexports\u201d); \u003Cem\u003ELow v. Austin\u003C\/em\u003E (1872) (holding that goods cease to be \u201cImports\u201d when no longer in \u201coriginal package\u201d). In \u003Cem\u003EMichelin\u003C\/em\u003E, the Supreme Court adopted a new analysis of the Import-Export Clause. A nondiscriminatory state tax would be invalidated only if it: (1) prevented the federal government from regulating foreign commerce uniformly; (2) diverted import revenue from the federal government to the states; or (3) risked interstate disharmony like that seen under the Confederation. See also\u003Cem\u003E Itel Containers Int\u2019l Corp. v. Huddleston\u003C\/em\u003E (1993) (applying Michelin Tire).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EMore recently, \u003Cem\u003EWoodruff v. Parham\u003C\/em\u003E has been questioned. In 1997, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the case was wrongly decided, that the historical evidence plainly showed that the Import-Export Clause did apply domestically, and that the clause should be substituted for the Court\u2019s dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, which infers limits on a state\u2019s ability to regulate interstate commerce from the Commerce Clause. \u003Cem\u003ECamps Newfound\/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison\u003C\/em\u003E (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting). In addition, Justice Thomas noted that since the Supreme Court\u2019s narrowing of the Import-Export Clause in \u003Cem\u003EMichelin Tire\u003C\/em\u003E, the fear expressed in \u003Cem\u003EWoodruff\u003C\/em\u003E that applying the clause to domestic imports would unfairly exempt out-of-state goods from taxation was no longer credible.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \n \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Brannon_Denning.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/cumberland.samford.edu\/faculty\/brannon-p-denning\u0022\u003EBrannon P. Denning\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003C\/h4\u003E\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n Professor of Law, Cumberland School of Law, Samford University\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000073-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000073-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000073-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000073-taba\u0022\u003E\n \n \u003Cdiv\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBoris I. Bittker, Bittker on the Regulation of Interstate and Foreign Commerce \u00a7\u00a7 12.01\u201312.09 (1999 \u0026amp; supp.)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBoris I. Bittker \u0026amp; Brannon P. Denning, \u003Ci\u003EThe Import-Export Clause\u003C\/i\u003E, 68 Miss. L.J. 521 (1998)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E1 William Winslow Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States 295\u2013304, 316\u2013317 (1953)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBrannon P. Denning, \u003Ci\u003EJustice Thomas, the Import-Export Clause, and\u003C\/i\u003E Camps Newfound\/Owatonna v. Harrison, 70 Colo. L. Rev. 155 (1999)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWalter Hellerstein, Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages\u003Ci\u003E, Enhanced State Power to Tax Imports\u003C\/i\u003E, 1976 Sup. Ct. Rev. 99 (1977)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMichael D. Ramsey, \u003Ci\u003EThe Power of the States in Foreign Affairs: The Original Understanding of Foreign Policy Federalism, \u003C\/i\u003E75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 342 (1999)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000073-tabb\u0022\u003E\n \n \u003Cdiv\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBrown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 (1827)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAlmy v. California, 65 U.S. (24 How.) 169 (1861)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWoodruff v. Parham, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 123 (1869)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ELow v. Austin, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 29 (1872)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EZschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EKosydar v. National Cash Register, 417 U.S. 62 (1974)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMichelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276 (1976)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EItel Containers International Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60 (1993)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ECamps Newfound\/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000073-tabc\u0022\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000033\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ESpending Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000036\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ECommerce with Foreign Nations\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000037\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ECommerce Among the States\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000065\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPort Preference Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000074\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ECompact Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]