Commerce Clause Flashcards
A (modern period commerce clause): NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel
Law that regulated national labor relations was constitutional because labor strife will ripple through the economy with direct and “serious” effects on commerce in interstate supply chain.
- Must look at a law’s effect on commerce, not the source of injury
- Law regulates production activities, not products in interstate commerce [gets rid of distinction between “commerce” and production]
- Look at plainest facts of national life to determine if activity affects commerce [iron ore in MI and MN, limestones properties in PA and WV, RR connects arms of operation]
- Labor strife at any point in production leads affects larger national market
A (modern period commerce clause): U.S. v. Darby
Holding Congress can regulate (i) interstate lumber shipment prohibition AND (ii) can regulate wage/hours requirements.
Issue #1: interstate lumber shipment prohibition OK b/c Commerce Clause = plenary power to act. This is clearly a regulation of interstate commerce, so doesn’t matter that it also regulates morals
- Overrules Hammer the “inherently dangerous” doctrine is ridiculous to follow
Issue #2: says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce that’s activities “extend to the activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce… as to make reg of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legit end”
- Immediate, legit end? = excluding from commerce all goods which do not conform to specified labor standards
- Appropriate means? = Congress may choose the means reasonably adapted to the attainment of permitted end, even though they involve control of intrastate commerce
No substantive limits on Congress’ power, no substantive “zone of activities” for State
- If power delegated to Fed gov, then CANNOT be under the power of the States
- 10th amendment is merely a truism
A (modern period commerce clause): Wickard v. Filburn
Congress can regulate activity that is local in nature IF the activity exerts substantial economic effect on interstate commerce
Est. aggregation principle:
- when determining “substantial effects” on interstate commerce, Congress can consider cumulative effects of all individuals engaging in regulated activity
Even if Mr. Filburn alone does not have substantial effect on interstate commerce, cumulative effect of farmers doing same thing would have a substantial effect on commerce
A (modern period commerce clause): Heart of Atlanta v. U.S
Law banning discrimination in public accommodation constitutional because not allowing Black people to rent rooms, purely local activity, has a substantial and harmful effect on interstate commerce.
- Congress determined that discrimination resulted in decreased interstate travel, makes interstate travel difficult and unpleasant, inhibits interstate travel (75% of business comes from out of State)
- Must look at aggregate effects on interstate commerce that Congress sought to regulate and determine Congress had reasonable basis for declaring effects to be “substantial”
A (modern period commerce clause): Katzenbach v. McClung
Holding civil rights law applies to restaurant that buys $70k worth of food that traveled through interstate commerce.
- Congress found a rational basis for finding that the Civil Rights Act was necessary to remedy harm (discrimination) to interstate commerce
- Court gives great deference to Congress in legislative fact-finding
A (modern period commerce clause): Hodel v. Indiana
Court will invalidate legislative enacted under the Commerce Clause only if (i) it is clear that there is no rational basis for a congressional finding that regulated activity affects interstate commerce or (ii) it is clear that there is no reasonable connection between regulatory ends and asserted means.
- Prevent a race to the bottom in coal production (afraid of undercutting national market)
- Ensure that product of coal for interstate commerce is not at expense of agriculture, environment, public health
A (modern period commerce clause): Perez v. US
Criminal law regulating loan sharking can be regulated as an “activity affecting commerce”
- Affects interstate commerce because it allows organized crime to take over legit businesses (based on Congressional factual findings)
- RADICAL because it regulates activity traditionally left to the States (crime is within states’ police power)
R (retrenchment period): Congress can enact laws that regulate
- Channels of commerce
- Instrumentalities, things, people in interstate commerce
- Activities that “substantial effects” interstate commerce
- The economic activity, standing alone, has a “substantially effect” on interstate commerce
- Individually significant activities need not be economic bomb-threat?
- The aggregate impact (activity of all individuals performing similar actions) of individually insignificant activity has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce AND
- (i) regulated activity is economic
- (ii) Congress has made factual findings of substantial effects
The Court will not defer to Congressional findings if
- The regulated activity is non-economic
- The asserted effects on commerce are not too attenuated from the regulated activity
A (retrenchment period): U.S. v. Lopez
Law that bans guns near schools violates Commerce Clause b/c it does not substantially affect interstate commerce in the aggregate
- Holding a gun near a school is not inherently economic
- Congress did not make factual findings when they implemented the law, so Court won’t give facts deference
- Gun law would allow congress to regulate not only all violent crime, no matter how tenuously tied to interstate activity
A (retrenchment period): U.S. v. Morrison:
Law criminalizing violence against women violates Commerce Clause b/c it attempts to regulate a non-economic activity.
- If an activity is non-economic, CANNOT aggregate it (one act of sexual violence will not affect the national economy)
- The activity = rape = criminal act = non-economic activity
Commerce Clause: Rule
Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution states, “the Congress shall have the Power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.” Congress can constitutionally regulate: (i) Channel of interstate commerce (Gibbons), (ii) instrumentalities of interstate commerce like people, machines, and other “things” in interstate commerce (Lopez), articles moving in interstate commerce, and (iii) activities “substantially affecting” interstate commerce (Lopez).
