In the comments, Chris Wold, a law prof at Lewis and Clark law school in Oregon who specializes in trade and environment issues, adds some details about the proposed ban on plastic bags in Oregon:
the bill may look discriminatory to a panel: no plastic bags are made in Oregon but plenty of paper bags are.
He adds: "That is likely to complicate any discrimination analysis under Art. III and Art. XX."
That definitely complicates things. There's a clear benefit to the Oregon paper bag industry from the measure. I would think a panel would take that into account, either implicitly or explicitly. But would that be the end of the story? Could a panel get past this and find no violation, or find that the measure is justified? What could they use to reach that conclusion? Chris mentions the following:
The motivation for the bill is clearly environmental: environmentalists have been trying to get such a bill passed in Oregon for years now because plastic bags clog recycling machines and frequently wind up in rivers, oceans, etc.
Would this be enough?
