This refusal to do business with AZ, does it violate the Dormant Commerce Clause?

[AngryAmish]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause>

It has been very long since I studied this issue (and didn't understand it when I did) but I thought a state (or division thereof) can't discriminate against another state when contrscting. So Illinois can't say we won't do business with Wisconsin businesses since the Packers keep pounding the crap out of the Bears. So how can the City of LA say we won't do business with AZ businesses since they are racist fucks?

on edit, or the Priviledges or Immunities Clause? BUILDING TRADES V. MAYOR OF CAMDEN, 465 U. S. 208 (1984)

[sui generis]

1. I guess Arizona will have to sue them or something . . . .

hope they don't get a 1st generation American judge . . . .

[KamaAina]

2. That would open up several jumbo-size cans of worms

New York state, for instance, has had problems with Indian nations within its borders selling tax-free cigarettes. If this were to be applied, NYS can wave bye-bye to $millions in tobacco tax.

[AngryAmish]

3. How so?

[KamaAina]

4. Like this

The premise of the doctrine is that the U.S. Constitution reserves for the United States Congress at least some degree of exclusive power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Article I, § 8). Therefore, individual states are limited in their ability to legislate on such matters.

[AngryAmish]

5. Indian law gives me headaches

But each tribe generally has a series of treaties that regulate them doing business with the US and the several states. You would have to look at what the treaties says about smokes. But if NY says we are going to tax Iriquois smokes at $1 and others at $2, then it would be violating the actual Commerce Clause. (as you quote above)

But assuming the treaties are silent on smokes, and NY taxed Indian smokes at $1 and every other states smokes at $.5 then that would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause I think.

[roakes10190]

6. commerce clause

The commerce clause prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state persons to the advantage of its own citizens. A violation of the commerce clause triggers the equal protection clause and presents a constitutional violation, reviewable by the Supreme Court.

[Rex]

7. I'm sure this will all end up in the SCOTUS one day.

[JDPriestly]

8. Oh, no. that one. The part of Constitutional law that I hated the

absolute most.

[damntexdem]

9. So how is AZ going to effectively bring the conventions there?

Filing lawsuits just wont hack it.

Meanwhile, I will keep on boycotting AZ.

[AngryAmish]

10. There never is a problem with private entities that boycott

But when a state (or subdivision therof) starts doing stuff that discriminates then the constitution gets involved. Now after some more reading the Dormant Commerce Clause is likely not violated (market participant theory) but then there are equal protection problems - see City of Camden.

[X_Digger]

11. Interesting question..

But I wonder if, since those actions don't favor in-state over out-of-state, does the precedent apply?