TRI-M GROUP, LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406

Delaware regulation imposes apprenticeship wage and training standards on all sponsors, tying apprentice wages to Delaware-registry status and requiring a permanent Delaware office for sponsors.
Tri-M Group, PA-based contractor, bid on a Delaware state-funded project and paid Pennsylvania-registered apprentices at Delaware apprentice rates, while other workers were paid according to mechanic rates.
Delaware Department of Labor inspected the project, found Tri-M not registered as a Delaware sponsor, and demanded wage corrections and reimbursement to affected apprentices.
Tri-M sued for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the DPWR and ATRR as facially discriminatory against out-of-state contractors under the negative Commerce Clause.
District Court granted summary judgment for Tri-M; the Third Circuit reviewed the market-participant issue and dormant Commerce Clause analysis on appeal.
The Third Circuit ultimately held that Delaware acted as a market regulator, not a market participant, and the regulation violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the market-participant exception applies	Tri-M: DDOL is not a pure market participant; regulations regulate the market overall.	Sharp: DDOL acts as a market participant by promoting Delaware wages for work in state contracts.	No; market-participant exception does not apply.
Whether the Delaware scheme violates the Dormant Commerce Clause as discriminatory or burdens interstate commerce	Tri-M: Residency/registration requirements discriminate against out-of-state contractors.	Sharp: Regulations apply to all sponsors; no discrimination; serves local interests.	Discriminatory on its face; per se invalid under heightened scrutiny.
Whether Congress expressly authorized the discriminatory regulation	Tri-M: Fitzgerald Act and USDOL approvals authorize the scheme; discrimination is permitted.	Sharp: There is no unmistakably clear congressional authorization for discrimination.	Congress did not expressly authorize the discrimination; regulation invalid.

Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2005) (stricter scrutiny for discriminatory state laws; protectionist effects require justification)
White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, Inc., 460 U.S. 204 (U.S. 1983) (market-participant threshold and in-state biases in public contracts)
Alexandria Scrap Corp. v. Burns & Roe, 426 U.S. 792, 426 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1976) (market-participant exception case; state acts as purchaser to affect market)
Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1980) (state as market participant in distribution decisions)
Boston Harbor Assocs. v. Massachusetts, 507 U.S. 119 (U.S. 1993) (market-participant analysis in procurement and labor conditions)
Dillingham Constr. N.A., Inc. v. County of Sonoma, 190 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 1999) (state regulation of apprenticeship wages as public-works public policy)
Keystone Chapter, Assoc. Builders & Contractors v. Foley, 37 F.3d 945 (3d Cir. 1994) (state objective to set labor standards within police powers)
Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1992) (limits of market-participant when state also regulates private market)