Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Hughes v. Oklahoma Case
According to the court, the restriction on the transportation of the minnows outside the borders of Oklahoma State violated the interstate commerce (Meiners, Ringleb & Edwards, 2014). Instead of restricting transportation, the Oklahoma state could have established a quantitative restriction law. Such a law would restrict fishing and transportation of minnows beyond a certain quantity limit. This means that minnows could be fished in the state, but not beyond the allowed limits. This law would have conserved the minnows and was still observing all other federal laws relating to commerce.
To further protect the minnows from commercial exploitation, the state of Oklahoma would limit the number of minnows transported out of its borders. However, the law would not restrict transportation of the minnow in and out of the state. Since the main aim of the Oklahoma legislation was to conserve the minnows as part of wildlife, the law would be effective in compliance. The compliance with this law would have prevented the eventuality of keeping the property within the state. The problem with the law and the court was that the Oklahoma law discriminates other states by allowing the flow of the property within its borders but not outside.
If the state of Oklahoma makes an agreement with other states to restrict the transportation of the minnows, as a way of conserving them, then they would need a compromise. This would be a reasonable compromise because it would serve the interests of the state in wildlife conservation and would be in agreement with the federal law. The only this that the states would do is to find a compromise on the compliance of the state border authorities to prevent any transportation that would disadvantage a state.
Reference
Meiners, R., Ringleb, A., & Edwards, F. (2014). The Legal Environment of Business. New York: Cengage Learning