Commerce Clause - Case Take Aways

Question 1

McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 1

Necessary & Proper Clause

McCulloch v. Maryland - Maryland sues Federal Bank for unpaid taxes pursuant to Maryland statute

• Historical debate: To what extent does/should there be concern for state governments prerogatives matter?
• Congress has the power to create a bank even though it is not an enumerated power
  
  • Necessary & Proper Clause authorizes Congress powers incidental to enumerated powers, therefore the power to create a bank is incidental to the enumerated power of coining money
  • Determining an implied power:
    
    • Drafter’s Intent
    • Plain Language
    • Structural (Placement among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers)
• Maryland does not have the power to tax an institution created by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Constitution.
  
  • Court rejects Compact Theory (State consent determines whether Federal power is properly exercised) through the Supremacy Clause
    
    • The States through their citizens have already ratified the constitution, which authorized the action thus the Supremacy Clause is binding
      
      • State’s cannot interfere with federal action such that it would hinder/burden/interfere by taxing
    • There is no separate agreement between the State and Federal governments, the States were bound when their people ratified.

Question 2

Wickard v. Filburn

Answer 2

_Pre-Lopez Commerce Clause Jurisprudence _

Wickard v. Filburn - Aggregation Principle in growing personal supply of wheat

• Court determines if the whole group sought to be regulated has an interstate effect, if so any individual or entity within that class can be regulated
  
  • Requires a rational basis for concluding there is an aggregate effect
  • Where the class of activities has been regulated, the court will not pluck an individual out of the class

Question 3

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Answer 3

_Pre-Lopez Commerce Clause Jurisprudence _

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Post-Civil Rights Act: Hotel only serves white guests

Court held interstate travel to be a key component of interstate commerce, the moral social motive is irrelevant because of the connection to interstate commerce

Question 4

Katzenbach v. McClung

Answer 4

_Pre-Lopez Commerce Clause Jurisprudence _

Katzenbach v. McClung - Ollie’s BBQ served food that traveled through interstate commerce

• Court applies the aggregation principle to the effect of discrimination which results in less spending and fewer customers

Question 5

Hodel v. Indiana

Answer 5

_Pre-Lopez Commerce Clause Jurisprudence _

Hodel v. Indiana - Regulation of strip mining and required reclamation of strip-mining land upheld

• Legislation can only be invalidated if there no rational basis for the congressional finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce and that there is no reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends
  
  • Effect of strip-mining on commerce passes muster under rational basis review
  • Take Aways –
    
    • Rational Basis Review is applied to commerce clause cases
    • Congress can further noncommercial motives if there is a substantial economic effect

Question 6

Perez v. U.S.

Answer 6

_Pre-Lopez Commerce Clause Jurisprudence _

Perez v. U.S. - Loan Sharks – Criminal offense with an effect on interstate commerce

• Even when the regulations appear criminal, they may have an effect on commerce
  
  • Effect of Extortionate Credit Transactions pass muster under rational basis review

Question 7

United States v. Lopez

Answer 7

Post-Lopez Era Commerce Clause Jurisprudence

United States v. Lopez - No guns near schools

• Court invalidated gun restriction criminalizing gun possession near schools or at school
• Change in the Commerce Clause Jurisprudence
  
  • Effect → Substantial Effect
  • Activity must be economic and have an economic effect
  • Unclear if the majority is using Rational Basis Review (Dissent does)

Question 8

United States v. Morrison

Answer 8

Post-Lopez Era Commerce Clause Jurisprudence

United States v. Morrison - Violence Against Women Act, Rape victim not helped by her school

Court rejected congress’s regulation of noneconomic violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce (Affirms substantial effect principle)

• Cannot satisfy category #3 of the areas Congress may regulate through the Commerce Clause power because Congress used the aggregation of a non-economic activity
  
  • Unclear if rational basis review was applied
• Court uses a slippery slope argument: But-for causal connection would allow the regulation of anything just by mustering statistics

Question 9

Gonzales v. Raich

Answer 9

Post-Lopez Era Commerce Clause Jurisprudence

Gonzales v. Raich - Cali Medical Marijuana versus the DEA’s Controlled Substance Act

• Growing your own marijuana for personal consumption was held to have an effect on interstate commerce
• Court says it is plausible the government cannot distinguish homegrown legal marijuana from illegal black-market marijuana
  
  • Passes Rational Basis Review: Court held it is not necessary determine whether the activities taken in aggregate substantially effect interstate commerce. But only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding”
  • Confirms the Post-Lopez Requirements:
    
    • Substantial Effect
    • Economic Activity (marijuana as a fungible commodity that is produced, manufactured, consumed, and is indistinguishable from other marijuana)
    • Aggregation Principle (used to overcome the purely local commodity argument)
    • Rational Basis Review is the appropriate standard of review