31. Which of the following is the best argument supporting a motion to dismiss the lawsuit?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 empowers Congress to «regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.» Commerce is defined as «every species of commercial intercourse. .. which concerns more states than one,» including virtually every form of activity involving or affecting two or more states. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, which includes the ability to explicitly authorize states to regulate interstate commerce themselves. However, the Clause does limit each state's ability to unilaterally pass laws that burden interstate commerce. The negative implications of the Commerce Clause (called the «Dormant Commerce Clause») means that, in the absence of federal regulations on the subject, states cannot pass regulations on local aspects of interstate commerce unless they do not discriminate against out-of-state parties to benefit local economic interests and are not unduly burdensome. When a state regulation does not discriminate, but merely burdens interstate commerce, it may be upheld based on a case-by-case balancing of the legitimate state interest versus the burden on interstate commerce. This balancing test is appropriate only if Congress has not enacted a statute authorizing the state regulation at issue.

The Tenth Amendment provides that all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states (or to the people). However, given the expansive interpretation of federal powers (e.g., the commerce power), little state power is exclusive.NOTE: The call of this question is asking what the best argument would be in support of a motion to dismiss the association's claim that the state law is unconstitutional, so the correct answer will be the strongest legal argument why the law IS constitutional.

D is correct. The best argument in support of a motion to dismiss is that the federal statute explicitly authorizes the state's regulation of its groundwater, which removes any possibility of a Dormant Commerce Clause violation. Congress may exercise its authority under the Commerce Clause to permit a state regulation that would otherwise violate the negative implications of the Commerce Clause, as long as the congressional legislation unmistakably grants such permission. The federal statute that permits states to restrict or prohibit the transport of groundwater from one state to another qualifies as such legislation.

A is incorrect. This is not the best argument because it both incorrectly describes the state's burden in justifying a state law that discriminates against interstate commerce, as well as ignores the rule explained above. Here, the law prohibiting the withdrawal of groundwater from any well within the state for use in another state does discriminate against interstate commerce because it establishes a preference for in-state uses of groundwater over out-of-state uses. Normally, in order to justify such a law, the state must prove that it promotes a legitimate state interest and that there is no non-discriminatory alternative. In this case, however, the state need not shoulder that burden at all because a federal statute explicitly permits preferences for in-state uses of groundwater.

B is incorrect. It is incorrect to assert that groundwater located within a state is not an article of interstate commerce. Any item that can be bought, sold, or transported across state lines is an article of interstate commerce. Nevertheless, the law is constitutional because of the federal statute, as explained above.

C is incorrect. The Tenth Amendment does not protect state laws that violate a provision of the federal Constitution. A state law prohibiting the withdrawal of groundwater from any well within the state for use in another state discriminates against interstate commerce because it establishes a preference for in-state uses of groundwater over out-of-state uses. A court likely would hold such a discriminatory state law to be unconstitutional under most circumstances; in this case, however, a federal statute explicitly permits preferences for in-state uses of groundwater.

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states plenary authority over the regulation of the natural resources located within their respective borders.