Final answer:
Laws that have been held not to violate the dormant commerce clause allow some differences in treatment between states without unfairly discriminating against out-of-state interests, such as the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013. This act, which was generally not challenged on commerce clause grounds, sought to level the playing field for online and physical stores. Notably, the Supreme Court has also set precedent for stricter interpretations of the commerce clause in United States v. Lopez.
Step-by-step explanation:
The issue brought up pertains to the dormant commerce clause, which is a legal doctrine derived from the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. This clause implies that individual states do not have the authority to enact legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. The question asks which laws have been held NOT to violate the dormant commerce clause.
In the case of United States v. E. C. Knight, the Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between manufacturing and commerce. This case did not directly deal with the dormant commerce clause; rather, it established the federal government's inability to regulate manufacturing under the Sherman Act. However, it indirectly touches upon the scope of the commerce clause.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause allows for some differential treatment between residents and non-residents, making certain inequalities permissible, like higher tuition for out-of-state students or voting restrictions. This clause also is relevant when considering what might constitute unfair discrimination in the realm of interstate trade.
When discussing laws that did not infringe upon the dormant commerce clause, it's worth mentioning the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, which is an example of interstate commerce regulation that did not face significant legal challenges on the basis of the dormant commerce clause. Large online retailers, such as Amazon, might support this type of measure because it could level the playing field between online and brick-and-mortar stores and also possibly simplify the complexities of state tax systems.
In contrast to a permissive stance toward such regulation, the United States v. Lopez case represents a solid example of the Supreme Court striking down federal laws that overstepped the bounds of the commerce clause, signaling a more stringent interpretation that would influence future cases and potentially impact dormant commerce clause analysis.