Critical Legal Thinks Case study

Running Head: CRITICAL LEGAL THINKING CASE ASSIGNMENT 1

Critical Legal Thinking Case Assignment One Samuel Student

Florida State College at Jacksonville

Business Law and Ethics

BUL 3130 September 9, 2009

Abstract

The federal government has power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce

Clause of the U.S. Constitution. States may regulate interstate commerce pursuant to their

police powers. Such state regulation is invalid if it unduly burdens interstate commerce,

or if it conflicts with valid federal regulation. The factual scenario presents a conflict

between federal and state regulation of the dimensions of oil tanker ships entering Puget

Sound. Analysis of the principles of law and key facts determines that the state regulation

is invalid and the federal regulation is valid.

Critical Legal Thinking Case Assignment One

Analysis of the principles of law and key facts determine that the state of

Washington’s regulation of the dimensions of oil tankers entering Puget Sound is

unconstitutional.

Areas and Principles of Law

The areas of law applicable to the factual scenario are the Interstate Commerce

Clause; state police power to regulate interstate commerce; and the Supremacy Clause

The Interstate Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate interstate commerce—

commerce between the states, foreign nations or Indian nations. States can also regulate

interstate commerce as part of their police power to protect or promote public health,

safety, morals and general welfare. However, if the state regulation is unduly

burdensome on interstate commerce it will be unconstitutional because it violates the

Interstate Commerce Clause. Further, if Congress has regulated in the area: the

Supremacy Clause prohibits conflicting regulation of the same area by the states; and if

Congress has expressly provided that its regulation is exclusive, then the states are

prohibited from any regulation in the affected area.

Key Facts

Congress has regulated the design, length, and size of oil tankers in inland waterways.

This regulation is also in coordination with foreign countries. There is no federal

expression that its regulation is to be exclusive. The state of Washington has enacted

conflicting regulations regarding the size of oil tankers traveling in its territorial waters.

ARCO’s oil tankers used to bring oil into Washington’s inland waterways comply with

the federal regulation, but not with the Washington regulation. ARCO filed suit against

Washington to have the state regulation declared unconstitutional.

Analysis

Argument: Congress has the power, under the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate

the size of oil tankers to conform to international standards (Kenneth, page 239). In this

instance, the commerce of transporting oil affects commerce both with other nations, and

between states. The state of Washington also has the right pursuant to its police power to

regulate the size of oil tankers traveling in its territorial waters because it is related to

safety.

Counterargument: However, such regulation must not impose an undue burden on

interstate commerce. The Washington regulation violates the Supremacy Clause because

it conflicts with valid federal regulation. An argument can also be made that the state

regulation is an undue burden on interstate commerce because it requires a smaller size

vessel than allowed by international standards (Parker-Pope, page 117).

Conclusion

The Washington regulation is unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy

Clause. It is also likely unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce clause by

creating an undue burden on interstate commerce.

References

Kenneth, I. A. (2000). A Buddhist response to the nature of human rights. Journal of

Buddhist Ethics, 8. Retrieved from http://www.cac.psu.edu/jbe/twocont.html

Parker-Pope, T. (2008, May 6). Psychiatry handbook linked to drug industry. The New

York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

The title page speaks for itself.

The Abstract is a summary of your analysis and should be written last.

The Areas and Principles of Law should state and describe legal areas that would decide

this case.

The Key Facts are the facts from this fact pattern that would be used by the plaintiff and

defendant.

The Argument is the best argument that the plaintiff in this case would use to win.

The Counterargument is the best argument that the defendant would use to block the

plaintiff’s argument to win this case.

The Conclusion is the result that you believe a court would come to.

The References are those that you used for this analysis.