Nicholas J. Vanvelde operates a bait business in New Hampshire. Despite a New Ha

Question

Nicholas J. Vanvelde operates a bait business in New Hampshire. Despite a New Hampshire statute prohibiting the importation of live baitfish, Vanvelde arranged to have 106,000 live shining loopers (a species of fish commonly used as live bait in sport fishing) delivered to him from outside the State. He was charged under a federal statute making it a federal crime to transport fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law. He moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the New Hampshire statute unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce, and New Hampshire intervened to defend the validity of its statute. New Hampshire argued in support of its statute that live baitfish imported into the State posed two significant threats to New Hampshire’s unique and fragile fisheries. First, New Hampshire’s population of wild fish—including its own indigenous shining loopers—would be placed at risk by three types of parasites prevalent in out-of-state baitfish, but not common to wild fish in New Hampshire. Second, nonnative species of fish inadvertently included in shipments of live baitfish could disturb New Hampshire’s aquatic ecology to an unpredictable extent by competing with native fish for food or habitat, by preying on native species, or by disrupting the environment in more subtle ways. At trial, the District Court held the state statute constitutional. The court found that New Hampshire clearly has a legitimate and substantial purpose in prohibiting the importation of live baitfish because substantial uncertainties surrounded the effects that baitfish parasites and nonnative species would have on the State’s wild fish population, and that less discriminatory means of protecting against those threats were currently unavailable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, agreeing with Vanvelde that the New Hampshire statute was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because it impermissibly restricted interstate commerce. The court noted that New Hampshire was apparently the only State to bar importation of all live baitfish and that New Hampshire accepted interstate shipments of other freshwater fish, subject to an inspection requirement. Also, the court noted that parasites and nonnative species of fish could be transported into New Hampshire in shipments of non-baitfish, and that nothing prevented fish from simply swimming into the State from Maine. The appeals court concluded that New Hampshire had not demonstrated that any legitimate local purpose served by the ban could not be promoted equally well without discriminating so heavily against interstate commerce. New Hampshire appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. What does the Commerce Clause require in this situation? Does New Hampshire’s statute prohibiting the importation of live baitfish into the State violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution? Why or why not? Fully discuss how the Court would likely analyze this case. Nicholas J. Vanvelde operates a bait business in New Hampshire. Despite a New Hampshire statute prohibiting the importation of live baitfish, Vanvelde arranged to have 106,000 live shining loopers (a species of fish commonly used as live bait in sport fishing) delivered to him from outside the State. He was charged under a federal statute making it a federal crime to transport fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law. He moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the New Hampshire statute unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce, and New Hampshire intervened to defend the validity of its statute. New Hampshire argued in support of its statute that live baitfish imported into the State posed two significant threats to New Hampshire’s unique and fragile fisheries. First, New Hampshire’s population of wild fish—including its own indigenous shining loopers—would be placed at risk by three types of parasites prevalent in out-of-state baitfish, but not common to wild fish in New Hampshire. Second, nonnative species of fish inadvertently included in shipments of live baitfish could disturb New Hampshire’s aquatic ecology to an unpredictable extent by competing with native fish for food or habitat, by preying on native species, or by disrupting the environment in more subtle ways. At trial, the District Court held the state statute constitutional. The court found that New Hampshire clearly has a legitimate and substantial purpose in prohibiting the importation of live baitfish because substantial uncertainties surrounded the effects that baitfish parasites and nonnative species would have on the State’s wild fish population, and that less discriminatory means of protecting against those threats were currently unavailable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, agreeing with Vanvelde that the New Hampshire statute was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because it impermissibly restricted interstate commerce. The court noted that New Hampshire was apparently the only State to bar importation of all live baitfish and that New Hampshire accepted interstate shipments of other freshwater fish, subject to an inspection requirement. Also, the court noted that parasites and nonnative species of fish could be transported into New Hampshire in shipments of non-baitfish, and that nothing prevented fish from simply swimming into the State from Maine. The appeals court concluded that New Hampshire had not demonstrated that any legitimate local purpose served by the ban could not be promoted equally well without discriminating so heavily against interstate commerce. New Hampshire appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. What does the Commerce Clause require in this situation? Does New Hampshire’s statute prohibiting the importation of live baitfish into the State violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution? Why or why not? Fully discuss how the Court would likely analyze this case.

Explanation / Answer

In this case Commerce clause needs to evaluate the following aspects:

No, New Hampshire’s statue doesn’t violate the Commerce clause of US Constitution. The reasons why it doesn’t violate the commerce clause are:

The Court will likely take above facts into consideration while analyzing the case and would give judgement in favor of state and hold the statue constitutional.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse N
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.