Montana v. City of Portland

The federal district court for the District of Oregon adopted a magistrate judge’s April 2025 findings and recommendation and dismissed a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the City of Portland’s restrictions on the construction of new or expanded bulk fossil fuel terminals. The court found that the plaintiffs—the State of Montana, trade groups, and a distributor of fuels, lubricant, and propane—did not adequately allege that the Portland law’s provisions were driven by economic protectionism or otherwise discriminated against interstate commerce on their face. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the law’s effects on the interstate fuel supply were discriminatory, and that they did not sufficiently allege that the law placed an undue burden on interstate commerce.

A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Oregon recommended that the district court dismiss an amended complaint in a lawsuit challenging the City of Portland’s restrictions on the construction of new or expanded bulk fossil fuel terminals. The plaintiffs—the State of Montana, trade groups, and a distributor of fuels, lubricant, and propane—filed the amended complaint after the district court dismissed their claims in July 2024. The plaintiffs conceded dismissal of their Foreign Commerce Clause, due process, and preemption claims, and the magistrate concluded that the plaintiffs again failed to state a dormant Commerce Clause claim because their allegations did not show that the city law’s restrictions discriminated against or imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce.

–