Commerce Clause Fact Pattern

Maryland's Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2002: In a lawsuit against a New York company, Eric Menhart, a law student in the District, alleged that First Choice Internet of New York violated Maryland law by repeatedly sending unsolicited commercial e-mail ("spam") to Menhart's company, MaryCLE, an abbreviation for Maryland Consumer Legal Equity. Menhart said the company, incorporated in Maryland, was formed to fight aggressive marketers.

The Commercial Electronic Mail Act, passed by the Maryland General Assembly in 2002, allows state residents to seek civil damages from spammers. The General Assembly this year passed a law creating criminal penalties for spammers.

Congress and many other states have passed laws to curtail spam. Courts in Virginia, New York and Vermont have struck down their states' anti-spamming laws. Courts in Washington and California have upheld those states' anti-spam laws.

What constitutional issues does the Maryland case present? What are Menhart's best arguments? First Choice Internet's best arguments? (Remember: make the two parties address each other's arguments!) What decision in Maryland?

1. Legal issue: ____________________________________________

2. Relevant case(s): ________________________________________

3. Defendant’s first argument: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ .

4. Plaintiff’s first response: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Defendant’s second argument (if any): _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ .

6. Plaintiff’s second response: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ .