Commerce Clause : Congress' BIGGEST power [DONE] Flashcards
Gibbons v. Ogden
[COMMERCE INCLUDES NAVIGATION]
A dispute arose over a state’s authority to regulate navigation.
Rule of Law
If a state and Congress both pass conflicting laws regulating interstate commerce, the federal law governs pursuant to Congress’s constitutional grant of power to regulate interstate commerce.
J. Marshall’s opinion in Gibbons [GET EXACT CLAUS NOTES FROM WS HANDWRITTEN]
But commerce “among” the several states means intermingled with the states, not occurring within the confines of one state. In other words, it must concern more than one state.
Hammer v. Dagenhart
STATE CHILD LABOR LAW ≠ COMMERCE CLAUSE
Even if your regulation is of interstate commerce you must have the right purpose, wrong purpose not valid
Holmes Dissent: Textualist Position. If it is of interstate commerce, then the purpose is irrelevant
US v. Darby [Overruled Hammer]
[Case on point for NOT considering Congressional Motives in regulating under CC]
You can regulate things just by AFFECTING Interstate Commerce
As long as its affecting interstate commerce then you can regulate it.
The motive and purpose of congressional regulation of commerce are matters for the judgment of the Legislature, and the Court cannot prescribe limitations on the exercise of its acknowledged power.
Wickard v. Filburn
[Case on Point for INDIRECT EFFECT ON COMMERCE?]
To show substantial effect -> Aggregate
[Wickard, we combine every farmer out there and justify that if we allow every individual to do the same thing then there will be a substantial effect on interstate commerce]
Congress uses this power to act on things for the environment, social groups, etc under the commerce power not because of the economy, but because the court is allowing for regulation of these things in aggregate.
Heart of Atlanta [Motel]
[Case on Point] The Commerce Clause extends the anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act
Hotel on interstate in Atanta refused to take black guests. Title 2 of the Civil Rights act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce.
Katzenbach v. McClung
[Additional CRA extension type] forbid racial discrimination in restaurants bc it was a “burden to interstate commerce”
Another Civil Rights Act Case
Perez v. US
Federal criminalization of activities related to interstate commerce can be applied to PURELY INTRAstate examples of that activity
∆ was a loan shark & was arrested after threatening a debtor. Even though it happened in the confines of one state, he was charged with the federal crime of loansharking.
US v. Lopez
- Channels of interstate commerce – interstate commerce itself
- Instrumentalities of interstate commerce – predating discrimination against interstate commerce [typical reason]
US v. Morrison
Violence Against Women Act does not substantially affect interstate commerce
parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and Amend 14
Gonzales v. Raich
Instant Facts The respondents challenged Congress’s authority to interfere with California’s power to regulate medicinal marijuana use within its borders.
Black Letter Rule The commerce power includes the power to regulate local activities that are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Not really just regulating interstate commerce, trying to eliminate the market for weed altogether.
Shreveport Rate Case
Shreveport Rate Case: Railroad that had journeys on its schedule within the state and journeys between states.
Discriminating against interstate commerce, by discouraging people to move interstate by manipulating the prices
Substantial effects on interstate commerce – economic/non-economic for aggregation
Distinction between economic and non-economic activities,
allowing aggregation only if the court calls the activity economic even if they are not interstate commerce.
If non-economic: then can only regulate if individual instances of the activity themselves have a substantial effect
National Pork
It’s really hard to show that a non-discriminatory state law violates the dormant commerce clause merely because of burden on interstate commerce.
NFIB v. Sebelius
Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to impose the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which required most individuals to obtain health insurance
J. John Roberts in Commerce Sebelius
Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to command individuals to purchase health insurance.
Facts: Affordable Care Act
Constitution protects individuals from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause as long as they abstain from the regulated activity
