LYCOS RETRIEVER 
Commerce Clause: Dormant Commerce Clause
built 636 days ago
Because of the national and international scope of the Internet, state regulation may not be constitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause. [100] The clause delegates to the federal government all powers that regulate commerce between the states. [101] Thus, "Congress has exclusive domain over those aspects of interstate commerce that are so national in character to demand uniform treatment." [102] Since any display of web pages and flow of finances, including those related to on-line gambling, cannot feasibly be limited to citizens of one state, the Internet is national and indeed, even international, in scope. Although the Supreme Court has acknowledged that states have the right to regulate gambling, the state laws are still subject to constitutional scrutiny. [103]
Source:
There are two notable exceptions that can permit state laws or actions that otherwise violate the Dormant Commerce Clause to survive court challenges. The first exception occurs when Congress has legislated on the matter. See
Source:
Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has developed a series of complex tests to determine whether a state regulation that affects interstate commerce violates the dormant Commerce Clause. If a state statute directly discriminates against interstate commerce, it is subject to the strictest scrutiny for any purported legitimate local purpose and in the absence thereof a court will invalidate it without further inquiry.
Source:
Pennsylvania law that requires ISPs to block alleged child porn siteshas just been struck down, both on First Amendment grounds and dormant Commerce Clause grounds. I haven't read the entire opinion, but what I have read suggests that the court's main reasons were: (1) given existing technical limitations, the law essentially pressures ISPs into blocking a lot of fully protected material as well as the unprotected child pornography; (2) the orders are issued before a full trial on the merits and are ... unconstitutional prior restraints (see the discussion of prior restraint law in this article for more); and (3) the law ended up excessively interfering not just with access to protected material by Pennsylvanians but also with such access by residents of other states, which makes the law an unconstitutional state regulation of interstate commerce (not all such state regulations are unconstitutional, but some are). The opinion is here.
Source:
Whether states have the power to enact their own legislation to restrict Internet gambling is questionable because of the dormant Commerce Clause. Even if they do have such a right, enforcement by either the state or federal governments will be difficult, if not impossible, because of the jurisdictional hurdle which must be overcome to prosecute out-of-state and international defendants.
Source:
MORE ABOUT
Dormant Commerce Clause