Citation network
North Dakota Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 21, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
North Dakota v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 495 U.S. 423 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court North Dakota v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 495 U.S. 423 (1990) North Dakota v. UnitedSearch
-
Federal Government in an area or over a transaction that falls outside the State's jurisdiction, see, e.g., Collins v. YosemiteSearch
-
of the liquor distribution system within the State's jurisdiction, see California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
by a strong presumption of validity, and should not be lightly set aside, see, e.g., Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. CrispSearch
-
costs, they do not regulate the Government directly, since they operate only against suppliers. See, e.g., Helvering v. GerhardtSearch
-
the regulatory system does not discriminate with regard to the economic burdens that result from it. See Washington v. UnitedSearch
-
See Collins v. YosemiteSearch
-
Hostetter v. IdlewildSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. MississippiSearch
-
Johnson v. PageSearch
-
and sale of liquor and the structure of the liquor distribution system. See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. CrispSearch
-
California Board of Equalization v. Young'sSearch
-
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. CondadoSearch
-
system for the distribution of liquor within its borders. That system is unquestionably legitimate. See Carter v. VirginiaSearch
-
by a strong presumption of validity, and should not be set aside lightly. See, e.g., Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. CrispSearch
-
the law may regulate the Government directly or discriminate against it, See McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 425 -437 (1819), or it may conflict with an affirmative command of Congress. See Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
Hillsborough County v. AutomatedSearch
-
Johnson v. MarylandSearch
-
to do its business. At one time, the Court struck down many of these state regulations, see Panhandle Oil Co. v. MississippiSearch
-
Dobbins v. CommissionersSearch
-
Weston v. CitySearch
-
that any state regulation which indirectly regulates the Federal Government's activity is unconstitutional, see James v. DravoSearch
-
California Board of Equalization v. SierraSearch
-
Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. NewSearch
-
of the primary role of Congress in resolving conflicts between National and State Government. See United States v. CountySearch
-
Garcia v. SanSearch
-
South Carolina v. BakerSearch
-
Penn Dairies, Inc. v. MilkSearch
-
Graves v. NewSearch
-
the United States directly or discriminates against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals. South Carolina v. BakerSearch
-
Washington v. UnitedSearch
-
degree of immunity must be resolved under principles of congressional preemption. See, e.g., Penn Dairies, Inc. v. MilkSearch
-
James v. DravoSearch
-
claim in this case, nor could there be, that North Dakota regulates the Federal Government directly. See United States v. NewSearch
-
Mayo v. UnitedSearch
-
suppliers, not the Government, and concerns about direct interference with the Federal Government, see City of Detroit v. MurraySearch
-
imposed on government contractors that we have repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge. See United States v. CitySearch
-
Alabama v. KingSearch
-
States may not directly obstruct the activities of the Federal Page 495 U. S. 438 Government. McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
that is, that it be imposed equally on other similarly situated constituents of the State. See, e.g., United States v. CountySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court North Dakota v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial