new
energy
indiana
limbach
argued
march
decided
may
ohio
statute
awards
tax
credit
ohio
motor
vehicle
fuel
sales
tax
gallon
ethanol
sold
component
gasohol
fuel
dealers
ethanol
produced
ohio
produced
another
state
extent
state
grants
similar
tax
advantages
ethanol
produced
ohio
appellant
indiana
limited
partnership
manufactures
ethanol
indiana
sales
tax
exemption
ethanol
wherefore
appellant
ethanol
sold
ohio
ineligible
ohio
tax
credit
appellant
sought
declaratory
injunctive
relief
ohio
common
pleas
franklin
county
alleging
ohio
tax
credit
violates
commerce
clause
federal
constitution
discriminating
ethanol
producers
denied
relief
ohio
appeals
ohio
affirmed
held
ohio
statute
discriminates
interstate
commerce
violation
commerce
clause
pp
clause
negative
aspect
directly
limiting
power
discriminate
interstate
commerce
prohibits
economic
protectionism
regulatory
measures
designed
benefit
economic
interests
burdening
competitors
thus
state
statutes
ohio
clearly
discriminate
interstate
commerce
invalid
unless
discrimination
demonstrably
justified
valid
factor
unrelated
economic
protectionism
merit
appellees
argument
availability
ohio
tax
credit
manufacturers
give
tax
advantages
ethanol
shows
ohio
provision
discriminatory
rather
likely
promote
interstate
commerce
encouraging
enact
similar
tax
advantages
spur
interstate
sale
ethanol
discriminatory
tax
treatment
goods
validated
promise
remove
reciprocity
accepted
categorical
exclusion
goods
merit
appellees
argument
ohio
statute
considered
discrimination
interstate
commerce
apparently
one
ohio
ethanol
manufacturer
appellee
south
point
ethanol
benefited
one
manufacturer
appellant
clearly
disadvantaged
discrimination
patent
neither
widespread
advantage
interests
widespread
disadvantage
competitors
need
shown
moreover
market
participant
doctrine
negative
commerce
clause
limitations
apply
state
acting
governmental
capacity
acting
capacity
market
participant
application
state
action
issue
ohio
purchase
sale
ethanol
assessment
computation
taxes
although
tax
credit
scheme
purpose
effect
subsidizing
particular
industry
transform
form
state
participation
free
market
pp
clear
discrimination
case
validated
justifications
advanced
appellees
health
commerce
appellees
argue
ohio
statute
encourages
use
ethanol
reduce
harmful
exhaust
emissions
ohio
surrounding
whose
polluted
atmosphere
may
reach
ohio
reason
suppose
however
ethanol
produced
state
offer
tax
advantages
ethanol
produced
ohio
less
healthy
thus
importation
ohio
suppressed
denial
otherwise
standard
tax
credit
ethanol
use
outside
ohio
effectively
fostered
subsidizing
ethanol
production
sale
fashion
giving
tax
credit
ethanol
thus
health
purpose
ohio
provision
merely
occasional
accidental
effect
achieving
purpose
favorable
tax
treatment
ethanol
essentially
reasoning
applies
asserted
justification
ohio
reciprocity
requirement
designed
increase
commerce
ethanol
encouraging
enact
ethanol
subsidies
pp
scalia
delivered
opinion
unanimous
herman
schwartz
argued
cause
appellant
briefs
david
young
richard
farrin
assistant
attorney
general
ohio
argued
cause
appellees
brief
appellees
limbach
et
al
anthony
celebrezze
attorney
general
david
crago
karen
mozenter
filed
brief
appellee
south
point
ethanol
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
state
idaho
et
al
michael
gottesman
peter
shinevar
james
jones
attorney
general
idaho
tam
ormiston
assistant
attorney
general
iowa
robert
stephan
attorney
general
kansas
hubert
humphrey
iii
attorney
general
minnesota
state
illinois
neil
hartigan
attorney
general
shawn
denney
solicitor
general
rosalyn
kaplan
michael
wynee
assistant
attorneys
general
national
governors
association
et
al
benna
ruth
solomon
stuart
smith
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
appellant
new
energy
company
indiana
challenged
constitutionality
ohio
rev
code
ann
provision
awards
tax
credit
ohio
motor
vehicle
fuel
sales
tax
gallon
ethanol
sold
component
gasohol
fuel
dealers
ethanol
produced
ohio
state
grants
similar
tax
advantages
ethanol
produced
ohio
question
presented
whether
discriminates
interstate
commerce
violation
commerce
clause
art
cl
ethanol
ethyl
alcohol
usually
made
corn
last
decade
come
widespread
use
automotive
fuel
mixed
gasoline
ratio
produce
called
gasohol
interest
ethanol
emerged
reaction
petroleum
market
dislocations
early
product
originally
promoted
means
achieving
energy
independence
providing
market
surplus
corn
recently
emphasis
shifted
environmental
advantages
replacement
lead
enhancing
fuel
octane
see
department
agriculture
ethanol
economic
policy
tradeoffs
ethanol
however
continues
expensive
gasoline
emergence
ethanol
production
commercial
scale
dates
enactment
first
federal
subsidy
form
exemption
federal
motor
fuel
excise
taxes
see
energy
tax
act
pub
stat
codified
amended
ed
supp
iv
since
many
particularly
areas
country
enacted
ethanol
subsidies
see
general
accounting
office
importance
impact
federal
alcohol
fuel
tax
incentives
ohio
first
passed
measure
providing
ohio
gasohol
dealers
credit
many
cents
per
gallon
ethanol
used
product
ohio
motor
vehicle
fuel
sales
tax
payable
ethanol
gasoline
credit
originally
available
without
regard
source
ethanol
see
act
june
ohio
leg
acts
however
ohio
enacted
denies
credit
ethanol
coming
grant
tax
credit
exemption
refund
ethanol
ohio
state
grants
smaller
tax
advantage
ohio
granting
equivalent
credit
ethanol
state
appellant
indiana
limited
partnership
manufactures
ethanol
south
bend
indiana
sale
several
including
ohio
indiana
repealed
tax
exemption
ethanol
effective
july
see
act
mar
ind
acts
time
also
passed
legislation
providing
direct
subsidy
indiana
ethanol
producers
sole
one
appellant
see
ind
code
supp
thus
reason
ohio
reciprocity
provision
appellant
ethanol
sold
ohio
became
ineligible
ohio
tax
credit
appellant
sought
declaratory
injunctive
relief
common
pleas
franklin
county
ohio
alleging
violated
commerce
clause
discriminating
ethanol
producers
advantage
industry
denied
relief
ohio
appeals
affirmed
divided
ohio
initially
reversed
finding
discriminated
without
adequate
justification
products
origin
shielded
ohio
producers
competition
ohio
granted
appellees
motion
rehearing
reversed
majority
finding
provision
protectionist
unreasonably
burdensome
ohio
noted
probable
jurisdiction
ii
long
accepted
commerce
clause
grants
congress
authority
regulate
commerce
among
also
directly
limits
power
discriminate
interstate
commerce
see
hughes
oklahoma
hood
sons
du
mond
welton
missouri
negative
aspect
commerce
clause
prohibits
economic
protectionism
regulatory
measures
designed
benefit
economic
interests
burdening
competitors
see
bacchus
imports
dias
hood
sons
supra
guy
baltimore
thus
state
statutes
clearly
discriminate
interstate
commerce
routinely
struck
see
sporhase
nebraska
ex
rel
douglas
lewis
bt
investment
managers
dean
milk
madison
unless
discrimination
demonstrably
justified
valid
factor
unrelated
economic
protectionism
see
maine
taylor
ohio
provision
issue
explicitly
deprives
certain
products
generally
available
beneficial
tax
treatment
made
certain
thus
face
appears
violate
cardinal
requirement
nondiscrimination
appellees
argue
however
availability
tax
credit
manufacturers
give
tax
advantages
ethanol
shows
ohio
provision
far
discriminating
interstate
commerce
likely
promote
encouraging
enact
similar
tax
advantages
spur
interstate
sale
ethanol
rejected
similar
contention
earlier
reciprocity
case
great
atlantic
pacific
tea
cottrell
regulation
issue
permitted
milk
state
sold
mississippi
state
origin
accepted
mississippi
milk
reciprocal
basis
mississippi
put
forward
among
arguments
assertion
reciprocity
requirement
effect
provision
advancing
identical
national
interest
served
commerce
clause
response
said
mississippi
may
use
threat
economic
isolation
weapon
force
sister
enter
even
desirable
reciprocity
agreement
recently
characterized
nebraska
reciprocity
requirement
export
ground
water
state
facially
discriminatory
legislation
merited
strictest
scrutiny
sporhase
nebraska
ex
rel
douglas
supra
quoting
hughes
oklahoma
supra
true
cottrell
sporhase
effect
state
refusal
accept
offered
reciprocity
total
elimination
transport
subject
product
offering
state
whereas
present
case
effect
refusal
product
placed
substantial
commercial
disadvantage
discriminatory
tax
treatment
makes
difference
purposes
commerce
clause
analysis
leading
case
baldwin
seelig
new
york
law
excluding
milk
impose
absolute
ban
rather
allowed
importation
sale
long
initial
purchase
dairy
farmer
made
new
york
price
words
appellant
order
sell
product
ohio
cut
profits
reducing
sales
price
market
price
sufficiently
compensate
ohio
forgone
tax
credit
also
milk
baldwin
order
sell
product
new
york
cut
profits
increasing
purchase
price
market
price
sufficiently
meet
new
minimum
viewed
new
york
law
economic
barrier
competition
equivalent
rampart
customs
duties
similarly
hunt
washington
apple
advertising
found
invalid
commerce
clause
north
carolina
statute
exclude
apples
merely
imposed
additional
costs
upon
washington
sellers
deprived
commercial
advantage
distinctive
grading
system
present
law
likewise
imposes
economic
disadvantage
upon
sellers
promise
remove
reciprocity
accepted
justifies
disparity
treatment
justify
categorical
exclusion
indicated
reciprocity
requirements
per
se
unlawful
see
cottrell
supra
case
cited
proposition
kane
new
jersey
discussed
context
state
offered
reciprocity
accept
consequence
sure
less
favored
treatment
citizens
nonetheless
treatment
complied
minimum
requirements
commerce
clause
quite
contrary
threat
used
induce
indiana
acceptance
effect
taxing
product
made
manufacturers
rate
higher
product
made
ohio
manufacturers
without
shall
see
justification
disparity
appellees
argue
considered
discrimination
interstate
commerce
practical
scope
limited
apparently
one
ohio
ethanol
manufacturer
exists
appellee
south
point
ethanol
one
manufacturer
appellant
clearly
disadvantaged
provision
cases
however
indicate
discrimination
patent
neither
widespread
advantage
interests
widespread
disadvantage
competitors
need
shown
example
bacchus
imports
dias
supra
held
unconstitutional
commerce
clause
special
exemption
hawaii
liquor
tax
certain
locally
produced
alcoholic
beverages
okolehao
fruit
wine
even
though
locally
produced
alcoholic
beverages
subject
tax
lewis
bt
investment
managers
supra
held
unconstitutional
florida
statute
excluded
certain
business
activities
florida
entities
bank
holding
companies
banks
trust
companies
neither
cases
consider
size
number
businesses
favored
businesses
disfavored
relevant
determination
varying
strength
bar
economic
protectionism
according
size
number
firms
affected
serve
purpose
except
creation
new
uncertainties
already
complex
filed
appellees
contend
even
discriminatory
discrimination
covered
commerce
clause
doctrine
doctrine
differentiates
state
acting
distinctive
governmental
capacity
state
acting
general
capacity
market
participant
former
subject
limitations
negative
commerce
clause
see
hughes
alexandria
scrap
thus
example
state
chooses
manufacture
sell
cement
business
methods
including
favor
residents
greater
constitutional
concern
private
business
see
reeves
stake
doctrine
application
ohio
action
ultimately
issue
neither
purchase
sale
ethanol
assessment
computation
taxes
primeval
governmental
activity
sure
tax
credit
scheme
purpose
effect
subsidizing
particular
industry
many
dispositions
tax
laws
transform
form
state
participation
free
market
opinion
alexandria
scrap
supra
case
appellees
place
great
reliance
remotely
establish
proposition
examined
upheld
commerce
clause
attack
basis
doctrine
maryland
cash
subsidy
program
discriminated
favor
processors
purpose
program
achieve
removal
unsightly
abandoned
autos
state
characterized
proprietary
rather
regulatory
activity
based
analogy
state
private
purchaser
auto
hulks
subsequently
observed
subsidy
programs
unlike
alexandria
scrap
might
characterized
proprietary
see
reeves
supra
think
clear
ohio
assessment
computation
fuel
sales
tax
regardless
whether
produces
subsidy
plausibly
analogized
activity
private
purchaser
escaped
notice
appellant
eligible
receive
cash
subsidy
indiana
program
ethanol
producers
potential
beneficiary
scheme
less
discriminatory
one
attacks
less
effective
conferring
commercial
advantage
competitors
believe
indiana
scheme
valid
however
believe
ohio
scheme
must
valid
well
commerce
clause
prohibit
state
action
designed
give
residents
advantage
marketplace
action
description
connection
state
regulation
interstate
commerce
direct
subsidization
domestic
industry
ordinarily
run
afoul
prohibition
discriminatory
taxation
manufacturers
course
even
indiana
subsidy
invalid
retaliatory
violation
commerce
clause
ohio
acceptable
see
cottrell
iii
cases
leave
open
possibility
state
may
validate
statute
discriminates
interstate
commerce
showing
advances
legitimate
local
purpose
adequately
served
reasonable
nondiscriminatory
alternatives
see
maine
taylor
sporhase
nebraska
ex
rel
douglas
hughes
oklahoma
dean
milk
madison
perhaps
another
way
saying
may
appear
discriminatory
provision
constitutionally
prohibited
sense
protectionist
enactment
may
closer
analysis
however
put
standards
justification
high
cf
philadelphia
new
jersey
simple
economic
protectionism
effected
state
legislation
virtually
per
se
rule
invalidity
erected
hughes
oklahoma
supra
acial
discrimination
may
fatal
defect
minimum
invokes
strictest
scrutiny
appellees
advance
two
justifications
clear
discrimination
present
case
health
commerce
first
argue
provision
encourages
use
ethanol
replacement
lead
gasoline
reduce
harmful
exhaust
emissions
ohio
surrounding
whose
polluted
atmosphere
may
reach
ohio
certainly
protection
health
legitimate
state
goal
assume
purposes
argument
use
ethanol
generally
furthers
obviously
except
perhaps
accident
far
ethanol
use
ohio
concerned
reason
suppose
ethanol
produced
state
offer
tax
advantages
ethanol
produced
ohio
less
healthy
thus
importation
ohio
suppressed
denial
otherwise
standard
tax
credit
far
ethanol
use
outside
ohio
concerned
surely
effectively
fostered
subsidizing
ethanol
production
sale
fashion
giving
tax
credit
ethanol
helpful
expedients
qualify
tax
credit
clearer
health
purpose
provision
merely
occasional
accidental
effect
achieving
purpose
favorable
tax
treatment
ethanol
essentially
reasoning
also
responds
appellees
second
related
justification
discrimination
reciprocity
requirement
designed
increase
commerce
ethanol
encouraging
enact
ethanol
subsidies
encouraged
ethanol
subsidies
general
favorable
treatment
ethanol
sum
appellees
health
commerce
justifications
amount
implausible
speculation
suffice
validate
plain
discrimination
products
manufacture
reversed
footnotes
appellant
also
argued
excessive
burden
commerce
test
set
forth
pike
bruce
church
extent
claim
requires
separate
analysis
find
unnecessary
reach
light
disposition
discrimination
claim
appellant
also
alleged
state
courts
violations
equal
protection
clause
privileges
immunities
clause
fourteenth
amendment
challenges
issue
appeal
interpret
trial
acceptance
appellees
proposed
finding
fact
april
judicial
finding
protecting
health
fact
purpose
ohio
general
assembly
rather
merely
one
several
conceivable
purposes
enactment
event
subjective
purpose
little
rational
relationship
provision
question
merely
implausible
even
true
inadequate
validate
patent
discrimination
interstate
commerce