Daimlerchrysler V. Cuno, State Investment Incentives, and the Future of the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine

22 Pages Posted: 3 Oct 2006

See all articles by Brannon P. Denning

Brannon P. Denning

Samford University - Cumberland School of Law

Abstract

One of the Term's most anticipated decision, Cuno turned out to be a bit of an anticlimax, since the Court declined to reach the merits of the plaintiffs' suit against the State of Ohio for certain of its investment tax credits, concluding that the state taxpayer-plaintiffs lacked standing. In this essay, written for the CATO Supreme Court Review, I describe the Court's decision, reexamine the arguments for and against the constitutionality of the investment tax credits, and offer some thoughts on why the constitutional question - still a live one after Cuno - is so difficult. I conclude that the Court's own imprecision in its dormant Commerce Clause doctrine jurisprudence as to the meaning of discrimination contributes in no small part and offer some preliminary suggestions for clarifying that concept.

Keywords: DaimlerChrysler, Cuno, dormant commerce clause, tax, subsidy, investment tax credit, Ohio

Suggested Citation

Denning, Brannon P., Daimlerchrysler V. Cuno, State Investment Incentives, and the Future of the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine. CATO Supreme Court Review, 2005-2006. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=934633

Brannon P. Denning (Contact Author)

Samford University - Cumberland School of Law ( email )

800 Lakeshore Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35229
United States
205-726-2413 (Phone)
205-726-4060 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
95
rank
269,539
Abstract Views
765
PlumX Metrics
!

Under construction: SSRN citations will be offline until July when we will launch a brand new and improved citations service, check here for more details.

For more information