Commerce Clause Flashcards
Maryland tried to tax the US bank. Congress has implied power (but not unlimited) and fed law is supreme law within its sphere of action. If an end is within the fed gov’s sphere of action, then Congress may use whatever means are convenient or useful in achieving that end.
McCulloch v. Maryland (Scope of Fed Power)
NY legislature granted 2 people monopoly to operate steamboats, a competing ferry service violated this exclusive right. Argued that fed gov didn’t have power to regulate, commerce is only buying and selling. Court held “commerce” should be defined broadly, more than buying/selling, all phases of business. Congress can regulate intrastate commerce if it had an impact on interstate activities.
Gibbons v. Ogden
NLRB charged J&L with discriminating against employees in hiring, and interfering with their ability to unionize. J&L’s shipping, mining, and manufacturing activities stretch across US. Court found Congress did have power to pass National Labor Relations Act under Commerce Clause bc its act affects commerce among the state.
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin
Fair Labor Standards Act prevented shipment and production of items that were produced under substandard labor conditions. Court found Congress may control production by regulating shipments in interstate commerce (extends power to intrastate activities which affect interstate commerce). While manufacturing by itself is not commerce, the shipment of it interstate is. A law is constitutional if it is within the scope of Congress’ power and so 10A will no longer be used by judiciary to invalidate fed laws.
US v. Darby
Under Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, participation in a federal crop marketing program required the farmer to agree to plant only the volume of crops fed allowed him. Court found Congress can regulate how much wheat a farmer grows, no longer uses Lochner test of direct or indirect effect on interstate commerce. When people grow wheat it affects price of wheat. Creates test: Whether Congress has a rational basis to conclude that the activity considered in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce? (low standard)
Wickard v. Filburn
Motel refused to accommodate African Americans and challenged CRA. Court admitted Congress was legislating moral wrongs, but held it was bad argument bc Congress had explicit power to regulate commerce (this falls under Raich definition of econ bc buy/sell hotel rooms) and thus was subject to Wickard test so anti-racist motivation does not matter. Congress had rational basis to conclude that regulated activity substantially affected interstate commerce bc discrimination has quantitative (blacks travel less) and qualitative (blacks will spend less money) effect on interstate commerce.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (Wickard)
Private restaurant didn’t want to sell food to African Americans. Unlike Heart of Atlanta Motel, does not have obvious tie to interstate commerce. Congress has rational basis to conclude that selling food, considered in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Katzenbach v. McClung (Wickard)
A loan shark, when considered in the aggregate, does have an effect on interstate commerce by funding interstate crime. Concurrence and Dissent concerned with idea that if this is a fed crim law, then anything can be a fed crim law and nothing is left for state.
Perez v. US
Gun-Free School Zone Act is not within Commerce Clause. Commerce argued it was bc guns near schools contribute to violent crimes and affects insurance costs and restricts interstate travel to areas with gun violence. Also affects learning in schools, thereby impacting national econ productivity thus passes Wickard Test. Court held leg act is a crim statute that by its terms has nothing to do with commerce, however broadly one might define those terms.
US v. Lopez (Non-Economic Activity being regulated)
- Essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity
- Jurisdictional Element
- Congressional findings are not determinative
- Too attenuated reasoning of the link between intra and interstate activity
Congress does not have power under CC to pass Violence Against Women Act. This is (non-economic) intrastate activity that affects interstate commerce. Not essential part of larger reg of econ activity bc crim statute regulating gender violence. It does not contain any jurisdictional element. Court agreed violence against women has effect on interstate commerce in aggregate, but this factor not enough. The implication of upholding the law would provide Congress too much authority , if accepted that Congress has power, it would allow them to regulate any crime - too attenuated (Court reserves some power for states)
US v. Morrison
Congress does have power to regulate intrastate manufacture and possession of weed for medical purposes. Controlled Substance Act regulates econ activity, passing Wickard test bc Congress has rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed mj outside fed control would similarly affect price and market conditions.
Gonzales v. Raich
Law prohibits states from gambling on sports. NJ passed law permitting sports gambling, and NCAA sued to enjoin law. NJ argued fed law violated anti-comandeering principle. The SC said that it did bc the statute was directing state leg - not to pass laws that would permit gambling - which is direct violation of state sovereignty. It was a law directly telling state what they couldn’t do.
Murphy v. NCAA
Congress created a statutory duty for states to provide for the state disposal of radioactive wastes generated within their borders. States would take title to any wastes within their borders that were not properly disposed and be liable for all damages. Even though regulating waste interstate is within scope of Commerce power. NY still had argument that it violated 10A. 10A prohibits the “take title provision,” Congress cannot commandeer the leg process of states. Congress can pass a law that regulated low level waste, but cannot pass law that directs a state to do certain things, must do it directly.
New York v. US (10A)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which required local and state law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers violated 10A bc Fed can’t command state officials to help enforce federal law. Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce fed law, incompatible with dual sovereignty.
Printz v. US (10A)
Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 was designed to prohibit the selling or reselling of individuals’ personal information by DMVs or private entities. Does NOT violate 10A. Fed laws that require action from both states and private entities are not “commandeering.”
Reno v. Cordon (10A)
Analytic Framework
Part 1: Congress May Regulate 3rd Category
- intrastate activity that affects interstate commerce
Part 2: Does activity being regulated fall w/in Raich definition of Economic?
- Economic: “production, distribution OR consumption of commodities”. - Wickard
- Non-Economic: Lopez/Morrison
Part 3: Wickard v. Lopez
- If economic - deferential Wickard
- If non-economic - far less deferential and judge empowering Lopez/Morrison analysis
Wickard Test
Whether Congress has some rational basis to conclude local activity can, on the aggregate, have an actual effect on interstate commerce (no economic data needed.) It’s a deference that Congress may have properly considered that certain conduct might have a certain effect.
Lopez/Morrison Test
These factors are not dispositive, they are just factors that can help the court to determine whether C exceeded its scope of the CC and their power to regulate non-economic intrastate (local) activity. The court has broad discretion and can consider other things. Thus, it is very hard to predict how a judge will rule.”
Lopez Factors (not dispositive):
- Law/activity being regulated is ESSENTIAL Part of larger reg of economic activity:
- if part of something bigger, then can regulate the local activity if it can undercut the purpose of the larger scheme (good for C)
- Lopez not part of bigger law/crim statute had nothing to do w/ commerce - Jdx Element: whether the fed law on its face includes an explicit jdx element (good for Congress)
- FINDING that activity IMPACTS interstate commerce
- Attenuated Reasoning (Congress’ reasoning linking intrastate activity and interstate commerce)
- Reg traditionally regulated by the State
