Summary

Wiley Blount Rutledge Robertson v. California (328 U.S. 440…

Not the mere fact or form of licensing, but what the license stands for by way of regulation is important. [27] So also, it is not simply the fact of prohibition, but what is forbidden and for the protection of what interest, that is determinative. For the commerce clause is not a guaranty of the right to import into a state whatever one may please, absent a prohibition by Congress, regardless of the effects of the importation upon the local community. That is true whether what is brought in consists of diseased cattle [28] or fraudulent or unsound insurance.
Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge Robertson v. California (328 U.S. 440…

It is quite obvious, to repeat only one of those considerations, that if appellant's contentions were accepted and foreign insurers were to be held free to disregard California's reserve requirements and then to clothe their agents or others acting for them with their immunity, not only would the state be made helpless to protect her people against the grossest forms of unregulated or loosely regulated foreign insurance, but the result would be inevitably to break down also the system for control of purely local insurance business.
Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge Robertson v. California (328 U.S. 440…

It is true that California imposes her reserve standards, for both domestic and foreign insurers, by requiring them to secure a certificate of authority to do business issued upon compliance with those conditions, in other words, by a form of licensing. But we are far beyond the time when, if ever, the word 'license' per se was a condemnation of state regulation of interstate business done within the state's borders. [25] The commerce involved here is not transportation.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature