Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1980

Reeves, Inc. v. Stake

447 U.S. 429 | 100 S. Ct. 2271 | 65 L. Ed. 2d 244 | 1980 U.S. LEXIS 40

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that, absent congressional action, a State acting as a market participant may favor its own residents when selling goods produced by a state-owned enterprise, even during a shortage.

Background

South Dakota built and operated a state-owned cement plant beginning in the early twentieth century after regional shortages had disrupted construction. For many years the plant sold substantial quantities of cement to buyers in neighboring States. Reeves, a Wyoming ready-mix concrete distributor, bought roughly 95% of its cement from the South Dakota plant from 1958 through 1978.

In 1978, production troubles and high regional construction demand created a cement shortage. The South Dakota Cement Commission adopted and enforced a policy of serving South Dakota customers first, honoring existing supply contracts, and allocating any remaining cement on a first-come, first-served basis. Because Reeves lacked a long-term supply contract, the plant stopped filling its orders. Unable to obtain cement elsewhere, Reeves sharply reduced its production.

Reeves sued for an injunction, arguing that South Dakota's resident preference violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The District Court permanently enjoined the policy, characterizing it as unconstitutional hoarding that threatened the national free market. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that South Dakota had acted as a market participant under Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. After an initial remand for reconsideration in light of Hughes v. Oklahoma, the Eighth Circuit again upheld the policy. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the case became moot when South Dakota stopped enforcing its resident-preference policy after market conditions improved.

Holding

No. The dispute remained justiciable because the shortage policy was capable of repetition yet likely to evade full judicial review.

Reasoning

Although South Dakota had discontinued the preference while the litigation was pending, cement shortages had occurred more than once and could recur. Each shortage was likely too brief to allow complete litigation before the policy ended, while Reeves faced a reasonable prospect of again being subjected to the same restriction.

Issue #2

Whether the dormant Commerce Clause prohibits South Dakota, as the owner and seller of a cement plant, from giving in-state buyers priority during a shortage.

Holding

No. South Dakota acted as a market participant rather than a market regulator and could favor its own residents in the sale of cement.

Reasoning

Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap draws a basic distinction between a State regulating private commerce and a State participating directly in a market. The dormant Commerce Clause principally restrains state taxes and regulations that obstruct private interstate trade; it ordinarily does not require a State, when buying or selling in the market itself, to extend equal commercial benefits to out-of-state parties.

South Dakota was plainly a market participant. It produced cement at a state-owned plant and decided to whom it would sell that product. As a seller, the State resembled a private trader with discretion to choose its customers, rather than a sovereign imposing rules on the dealings of private firms.

The Court found no constitutional significance in the fact that South Dakota had long sold cement across state lines before invoking its resident preference. Under Alexandria Scrap, a State does not lose its market-participant freedom merely because it initially made its benefits available to out-of-state buyers and later confined them to residents.

Calling the policy protectionist did not resolve the constitutional question. In this setting, the preference directed the benefits of a state-funded undertaking toward the citizens whose government assumed the project's costs and risks. States commonly reserve the benefits of state programs for their own residents, and the Court declined to treat that ordinary feature of state government as forbidden protectionism.

The feared analogy to state hoarding of natural resources did not apply. Cement was a manufactured product created through a costly plant, labor, and raw materials; South Dakota did not restrict access to limestone or other inputs, nor prevent private firms or other States from building cement plants. The Court left open what limits might apply if a State sought to hoard resources found within its borders by happenstance.

Reeves also argued that South Dakota's policy gave in-state ready-mix concrete firms an unfair advantage when they sold beyond the State's borders. But invalidating the policy on that ground would perversely suggest that South Dakota could more easily reserve cement for residents if it barred resale outside the State altogether. In addition, Reeves had not secured a long-term contract, and its difficulties could not be attributed solely to South Dakota.

The Court rejected the premise that South Dakota, having displaced market forces by operating a public plant, had to duplicate the allocation that a private market would have produced. South Dakota built the plant because private markets had failed to assure an adequate regional cement supply, and there was no sound basis to assume that private suppliers would have served Reeves during the shortage.

Federalism and practical considerations reinforced the result. Requiring States to distribute the output of public enterprises on equal interstate terms could discourage innovative state projects and deprive state residents of the benefits of their State's investment and risk. Congress, rather than the Court, was better positioned to adjust competing national and local interests if a restriction on state proprietary preferences proved necessary.

Dissents

Justice Powell

Reasoning

Justice Powell, joined by Justices Brennan, White, and Stevens, agreed that South Dakota could reserve cement needed for the State's own public projects. But he rejected the majority's rule that a State may withhold a publicly produced commodity from interstate commerce simply to advantage private residents and businesses within the State.

In his view, the relevant distinction was not merely between market regulation and market participation. The Court should instead ask whether the State was performing a traditional governmental function, such as supplying its own governmental needs, or operating a commercial enterprise in the private market. A State may make purchasing and supply decisions for government operations, but it may not use a state-run business to evade the Commerce Clause's prohibition on economic Balkanization.

Alexandria Scrap did not control because Maryland's bounty program affected market incentives through a subsidy rather than erecting a direct trade barrier. Maryland paid money that made in-state processing more attractive, but it did not prohibit the movement of junk cars out of the State. South Dakota, by contrast, directly cut off cement sales to out-of-state customers during a shortage.

The resident-first policy produced the same effect as a statute ordering private cement producers to reserve their output for South Dakota buyers—an effect the Commerce Clause would plainly forbid. Political pressure on a state enterprise makes it especially unrealistic, Powell reasoned, to equate the State with a private seller exercising ordinary business discretion.

The majority's manufactured-product distinction was also unpersuasive. A state cutoff of cement can burden interstate buyers just as severely as restrictions on natural gas, agricultural goods, or other resources. South Dakota's regional access to cement gave it the practical power to deny neighboring consumers the benefits of interstate competition.

Powell warned that the majority supplied no workable limiting principle. Under its approach, a State could manufacture food, pharmaceuticals, energy products, or other commercial goods and reserve them for local private interests. That result, he concluded, conflicted with the Commerce Clause's central purpose of preserving a national economic union.