To overcome the dormant commerce clause, what must a state prove?

To successfully justify a law that infringes upon the dormant Commerce Clause, a state must demonstrate that important local interests are served and that there are no nondiscriminatory alternatives available to achieve those interests. This means that the state has to show that its statute promotes significant local benefits that cannot be accomplished in a way that treats interstate commerce and local commerce alike, thereby necessitating the discriminatory statute.

The dormant Commerce Clause is designed to prevent states from enacting legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce; thus, the justification must clearly articulate the significant local benefits that the statute aims to achieve and ensure that there are no other reasonable alternatives that would have a less discriminatory effect on out-of-state commerce.

While the other options present various scenarios, they do not align with the legal standards set forth by the dormant Commerce Clause. For instance, proving that the statute is beneficial to out-of-state businesses does not serve as a justification for discrimination against them; endorsement by the federal government does not erase state obligations under the dormant Commerce Clause; and discrimination against only out-of-state residents does not provide valid grounds for a law that impedes interstate commerce. Therefore, the requirement for the state to prove that important local interests are served, coupled with the inability to