Use the following made up fact pattern to answer
parts 1 and 2.
Please use the IRAC approach to help you answer the questions. (You must use IRAC, I will upload IRAC definition and IRAC example for you)
The State of Pennslyvania decided that e-waste was becoming a major problem. E-waste consists of discarded electronic products (such as computers, televisions, and cell phones). Accordingly it enacted a statute that required all products sold in Pennsylvania that could eventually become e-waste to bear a label with the following statement: “This product will become e-waste, which is harmful to the planet and to you. Dispose responsibly.”
1. Setting aside any Commerce Clause concerns for the moment, analyze this state statute under the First Amendment. Does the statute violate the First Amendment?
2. Add the following sentence to the facts stated: “The State of Pennsylvania exempted all Pennsylvania manufacturers of products that might become e-waste from bearing that label. The legislative body of Pennsylvania exempted Pennsylvania manufacturers from this requirement because it wanted to ensure that Pennsylvania manufacturers were relatively well-positioned in the market as compared to other manufacturers. Setting aside any First Amendment concerns for the moment, analyze whether this statute violates the Commerce Clause.
Note: Please read my textbook on unit 1, chapter FOUR about “First Amendment” to answer the above questions.
Comments from Customer
You may find a textbook here: https://wetransfer.com/downloads/945aad0c035ea3159c3f35b316d78df720200623014516/dfb19da70f741320c5cb7f00a19d1da22
Solution
Question One
Issue
The main issue in the case scenario is whether the established statute requiring all products that may eventually become e-waste to bear a label as directed by the State of Pennsylvania is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution.
Rule
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech in both commercial and non-commercial statements. Notably, the Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing statutes that may restrict the freedom of expression (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2018).
Application
The statute established by the State of Pennsylvania can be analyzed in the context of the extent to which the First Amendment protects commercial speech. Notably, the Supreme Court argued that restriction on commercial speech could be valid if it seeks to implement a substantial government interest, directly advances that interest, and does not go further than necessary to accomplish its objective (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2018). Based on analysis of the scenario, it appears that the statute’s interest is substantial- it aims at reducing pollution from e-waste.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, I conclude that the statute requiring all products that may eventually become e-waste to bear a label as directed by the State of Pennsylvania does not violate the First Amendment because the government’s interest in the restriction is substantial.
Question Two
Issue
The main issue in this scenario is whether the statute exempting Pennsylvania-manufactured goods that may become e-waste from bearing a label violates the Commerce Clause.
Rule
The constitutional rule in play in this context is the commerce clause. Notably, the Clause provides that the national government has the exclusive authority to regulate commerce that substantially affects trade and business among states (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 2018). However, the dormant commerce clause also places some restrictions on state regulations that affect interstate commerce, especially those that alter conditions of competition across states.
Application
In this context, the exemptions placed on Pennsylvania manufacturers appear to alter the conditions of competition between Pennsylvania firms and out-of-state competitors. Notably, exemption of Pennsylvania manufacturers from the e-waste label requirement attempts to ensure that the latter is more competitive than other manufacturers.
Conclusion
The Pennsylvania exemption requirement violates the Commerce clause because it favors in-state interests over out-state commerce, thus affecting the overall intrastate commerce.
References
Clarkson, K.W., Miller, R.L., & Cross, F.B. (2018). Business law: Text and cases (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning