Oklahoma v. Kansas Nat. Gas Co.

2 Citing briefs

  1. Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed November 20, 2017

    In sum, because the Ordinance is undisputedly directed at, and only at, the interstate and foreign commerce conducted through a rail-to-ship export terminal (and undisputedly does, in fact, block the interstate rail transportation of coal and petcoke for marine export through Oakland) the Ordinance is a per se unconstitutional “direct regulation” of interstate and foreign commerce. See, e.g., NCAA, 10 F.3d at 640; West, 221 U.S. at 249; Bowman, 125 U.S. at 497. 2.

  2. Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland

    REPLY

    Filed December 18, 2017

    Ry. Co., 125 U.S. 465, 498-99 (1888) (regulation seeking to “prohibit and stop the[] passage” of liquor through jurisdiction a “regulation directly affecting interstate commerce”); West v. Kan. Natural Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229, 249 (1911) (statute effectively prohibiting export of natural gas unconstitutional under DCC because “to prohibit interstate commerce is more than to indirectly affect it”). Indeed, there could hardly be a more plain violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.