Commerce Clause Broadening

Question 1

7 Cases that broadened the Commerce Clause

Answer 1

1. US v. Darby
2. Wickard v. Filburn
3. NCRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel
4. Gibbins v. Ogden
5. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
6. Katzenbach v. McClung Sr
7. Perez v. US

Question 2

Main facts of US v. Darby?

Answer 2

Darby acquires raw timber and turns it into finished lumber (manufacturing), with the intention of selling and shipping it outside the state. Darby’s lumber was produced with labor that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and accordingly, it was indicted and fined.

Question 3

Main points of Darby? (3)

Answer 3

1. Distinction b/w commerce and manufacturing
2. Congress doesn’t need a commercial motive for the regulation of commerce
3. Commerce power extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce.

Question 4

Main facts of Wickard v. Filburn?

Answer 4

The Appellee, Filburn (Appellee), produced wheat only for personal and local consumption. He was penalized for growing wheat in excess of his allotment allowed by the Department of Agriculture.

Question 5

Main points of Wickard v. Filburn? (3)

Answer 5

1. Distinction between: Direct and Indirect commerce-production
2. Main question: does regulated activity exert a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce
3. Differentiates between creating commerce and regulating commerce

Question 6

Heart of Atlanta hotel main facts:

Answer 6

Prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Act), the Appellant, Heart Atlanta Motel, Inc. (Appellant) operated a motel which refused accommodations to blacks. Appellant intended to continue this behavior to challenge Congress’ authority to pass the Act.

Question 7

Heart of Atlanta hotel main points:

Answer 7

1. Racial discrimination had a disruptive effect on interstate commerce, and;
2. Like in Wickard, Congress may regulate “local activities” that have a substantial and harmful effect upon interstate commerce.

Question 8

Katzenbach v. McClung main facts

Answer 8

Ollie’s Barbecue, a family-run business in Alabama did not serve blacks in the restaurant, which was in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Act).

Question 9

Katzenbach v. McClung main points:

Answer 9

1. Discrimination by restaurants diminished their business resulting in lower sales of interstate goods and deterred new businesses from opening up; and
2. Question is not whether refusals to serve blacks in fact impeded interstate commerce; rather was there a rational basis to believe it was the case. (similar to Wickard - in the aggregate)

Question 10

Perez v. US main facts?

Answer 10

For his extortionate credit transactions whereby he used the threat of violence as a method of collection, petitioner was convicted for “loan sharking” pursuant to Title II of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (Act), 18 U.S.C.S. § 891 et seq. Petitioner sought review of his conviction, contending that the Act as construed and applied to him was an unconstitutional exercise by Congress of its powers under the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

Question 11

Perez v. US main points?

Answer 11

Perez created 3 kinds of activities that the commerce clause power reached. 1) Misuse of the channels of interstate commerce, 2) Protecting the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in commerce, and 3) Intrastate activities affecting the interstate commerce.