Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Hughes, Secretary Of Transportation Of Maryland, Et Al. v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.

• 1975 • 426 U.S. 794 • Burger Court
In the case of Hughes, Secretary of Transportation of Maryland, et al. v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Maryland statute that aimed to reduce automobile junk and theft by regulating scrap processors within its borders and providing incentives for out-of-state vehicles to be scrapped in Maryland. The court held that this did not violate the Commerce Clause as it was not discriminatory against interstate commerce but rather an incentive program designed...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1975
Docket: 74-1607
426 U.S. 794
96 S. Ct. 2488
49 L. Ed. 2d 220
1976 U.S. LEXIS 136
Argued: Jan 21, 1976

Hughes, Secretary Of Transportation Of Maryland, Et Al. v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Hughes, Secretary of Transportation of Maryland, et al. v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Maryland statute that aimed to reduce automobile junk and theft by regulating scrap processors within its borders and providing incentives for out-of-state vehicles to be scrapped in Maryland. The court held that this did not violate the Commerce Clause as it was not discriminatory against interstate commerce but rather an incentive program designed to address a local problem - abandoned cars littering roadsides and urban areas across the state. The ruling also clarified that states have broad authority under their police powers to regulate activities within their boundaries even if they impact interstate commerce unless such regulations are clearly excessive or protectionist in nature.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Byron R. White and Thurgood Marshall, argued that Maryland's bounty program violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV as it discriminated against out-of-state processors in favor of local ones. The majority held that this clause did not apply to corporations, but Brennan disagreed with this interpretation, asserting that a corporation should be treated as a citizen under the Constitution when its fundamental rights are at stake. He also contended that Maryland's statute was protectionist legislation designed to benefit in-state businesses at the expense of their out-of-state competitors which is contrary to principles underlying our federal system.

Opinion written by Justice LFPowell
Decided: Jun 24, 1976
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms