Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Maine v. Taylor & United States

United States Supreme Court
477 U.S. 131 (1986)


Facts

A Maine statute prohibited the importation of live baitfish from other states. Robert Taylor (defendant) owned a bait business in Maine and arranged to import 158,000 golden shiner minnows from other states to be sold in his Maine business in violation of the Maine statute. His shipment was intercepted and a federal grand jury indicted him for conspiring to import fish in violation of state law, a violation of the federal Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. Tyler moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the Maine statute was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce and thus could not form the basis for a violation of federal law. Maine (plaintiff) intervened to defend the validity of its statute on the grounds that the ban legitimately protected the state’s minnow population from the introduction of new harmful parasites and nonnative species. The district court considering the case agreed with Maine that the prevention of harm to its native fish population by prohibiting the interstate commerce of nonnative fish was a legitimate state purpose. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the law, but the court of appeals reversed. Maine appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.