Commerce Power

Question 1

Commerce Power

Answer 1

1) Constitution: Article I, § 8, Clause 3: US Congress has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian Tribes

Question 2

1) Development of Intra Regulation:

Answer 2

Direct/Indirect effect’ inquiry–>any inter effect (broad power)–>modern limits

Question 3

2) 10A interpretation development:

Answer 3

The powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

a) Child Labor Case: Limits what Congress could otherwise do (could be used to invalidate fed law)–>Darby: It’s a truism: merely connotes what is already implied in the Con as a whole; law is con’l so long as it is w/in scope of powers–>Now: Prince: impermissible for fed gov to make states enforce fed law

Question 4

Inter Activities

Answer 4

Gibbons v. Ogden:
“Commerce” = all phases of business (i.e. navigation) (not just the interchange of commodities) and “among the states” = inter effects (doesn’t stop at border)
(1) F: NY/NJ steamboat navigation route; NY gave exclusive right to Ogden and fed gave permits to Gibbonsfed gov has power to regulate route (navigation) via commerce powers

Question 5

Regulatory motivation doesn’t matter as long as…

Answer 5

…there are inter effects
(1) The Lottery Case:
Act banning shipment of lottery tickets (on ethical grounds) from state to state –> Con’l

Question 6

b) Integrated operation (Stream of Com) that have inter networks (intra parties have power to exclude from inter):

Answer 6

Jones and Laughlin: National Labor Relations Act (collective bargaining, no union discrimination) con’l since steel business part of SoC (multistate process) and intra labor relations had direct effects on inter com

Question 7

Intra activities w/ inter effect

Answer 7

i) Darby:
While manu itself is not inter com, shipment of manu’d goods interstate is and prohibition of such shipments is w/in com power
(1) F: sawmill; selling lumber interAct prohibiting inter shipment of goods produced by employers whose wages/hours didn’t comfort to Fair Labor Standards Act is w/in power of com clause

(2) Overrules:
(a) Child Labor Case: fed cannot prohibit inter transport from factories using child labor; not sufficiently related to inter commerce; sought to preserve authority of the states over matter purely local
(b) Carter v Coal: intra manufacturing doesn’t have sufficient link to inter com for fed reg
(c) Schechter: since there was no direct effect upon inter commerce, Court struck down Act regulating trade practices for the slaughtering market

Question 8

Instrumentalities of inter com:

Answer 8

Shreveport (rr’s are instruments of inter com)

(1) Intra activity may be regulated if it has close and substantial relation to inter com
(a) The Shreveport Case: Intrastate (Houston/Dallas) regulations of RR rates that affect interstate (Shreveport) rates/competition can be con’ly regulated

Question 9

iii) Aggregated intra activities

Answer 9

= inter effect

(1) Wickard v Filburn
(2) Perez

Question 10

(1) Wickard v Filburn:

Answer 10

Congress can regulate intra non-commercial activity if it has rational basis for believing that when viewed in the aggregate, activity would have a substantial effect on inter com
(a) F: allowed to regulate amount of wheat a farmer grows for own use since, when aggregated, has a substantial economic effect on inter com (wheat prices)

Question 11

(2) Perez:

Answer 11

Where class of activities is regulated and that class of activity is w/in reach of fed power, the courts have no power to separate, as trivial, individual instances of the class activity
(a)	F: upheld fed law banning intra extortionary credit transactions since loan shark racketeering can affect inter com and inter organized crime may use the funds inter

Question 12

Protection of other interest through Com Clause

Answer 12

Heart of Atlanta Motel;

Katzenbach

Question 13

Heart of Atlanta Motel

Answer 13

(since located near major freeway = channel of inter com) Court said that Civil Rights Act of 1964 could outlaw refusal to rent rooms to blacks under Com Clause since effects inter travel

Question 14

Katzenbach

Answer 14

Combination of Wickard aggregation principle with moral motivation = new
i) F: Ollies’ BBQ a strictly local opCourt affirms Civil Rights Act under com clause by saying that it is important for com that people travelling know they have a place to eat

Question 15

New Limitations in 21st Century

Answer 15

a) Morton v Bloom:
b) Lopez:
c) Morrison:
d) Gonzales v Raich:
a) NFIB v Sebelius:

Question 16

a) Morton v Bloom:

Answer 16

backyard, one-person coal mine (used for self or sold to neighbors); didn’t adhere to fed regs–>couldn’t be fed regulated; regs not intended to reach mine (clearly inapplicable provisions)

Question 17

Lopez Test

Answer 17

Congress may only regulate (via com clause):

(1) 4 Factor Test:
1. Trade matters: existence of a commercial trade/business

2. Expressed jurisdictional element: is there a requirement that the particular element be in interstate commerce and a requirement to prove it. specific statement linking to interstate commerce
   a. Nothing in the guns in school act that said anything about a gun in school affecting interstate commerce
3. Have there been explicit findings on this issue by Congress? Congress actually has to make them, no presumption as before.
4. Court will engage in own determination of the effects the activity has on interstate commerce.

Question 18

Lopez

Answer 18

ii) F: Act making it fed crime to possess firearm in school zone exceeded Congress authority under Com Clause
iii) criminal statute has nothing to do w/ com/econ (motivation for statute, while not dispositive, is relevant); No factual finding re substantial effect on inter com (weak link between possession/com); no jur’nal element (“in inter com”) to limit to particular class that has effect on inter com

Question 19

c) Morrison:

Answer 19

Violence against women act provided federal civil remedy for victims of gender motivated violence
i) Relied on Lopez–>not constitutional–> didn’t regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce

Question 20

d) Gonzales v Raich:

Answer 20

Congress could prohibit (via com clause) local cultivation/use of marijuana even when in compliance w/ st law (med purposes) since Act is aimed at combatting inter narcotics trafficking (via Wickard)

Question 21

a) NFIB v Sebelius:

Answer 21

Fed gov doesn’t have power via com clause to compel citizens to do activity (health insurance), but state gov’s do have that power (MA)–>individual mandate upheld under tax power

i) distinction between regulating activity/inaction w/ respect to the Com clause
(1) Brocolli argument: why not just mandate that people buy Broccoli? Independent liberty argument: if it was struck down on an ind. lib argument, then even states could not even pass this type of statute
ii) Dissent: uninsured are active by not choosing to get health insurance which has inter effects on insurance markets–>Com Clause does allow the fed gov to mandate that people buy health insurance or pay a penalty

Question 22

Summary of current law

Answer 22

a) 3 Relevant determining factors:
i) (1) Crossing state lines: power at its max when regulating anything that crosses state lines.

ii) (2) Reach intrastate transaction that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce (Jones
& Laughlin / Darby)

iii) (3) Congress has greater power over so called instrumentalities of interstate commerce
(Heart of Atlanta, Shreveport)
b) Aggregation principle: Can take all activities into account to reach interstate commerce. (Wickard)
c) Motives: Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause for reason that are not business, commercial or economic. However, if Congress is using moral, social, or cultural reasons Congress has a higher burden to justify its actions.

i) Suggestion commercial motive not required: Champion, Katzenback, Darby, Comstock
ii) Lack of commercial motivation a mark against federal power: Lopez, Morrison
d) Put Lopez and Morrison together: Where the primary concern seems to be non-economic, there is no jurisdictional element, there are no strong findings and the connection is too attenuated, there are limits