Congress’s Regulatory Powers: Federal Power to Regulate Interstate Commerce (1995-present)

Question 1

United States v. Lopez

Answer 1

It was unconstitutional for Congress to enact the Gun-Free School Zone under the Commerce Clause.

Question 2

United States v. Lopez

Issue

Answer 2

Whether it was constitutional for Congress to enact the Gun-Free School Zone under the Commerce Clause.

Question 3

United States v. Lopez

Facts

Answer 3

Congress made a law making it illegal to carry guns on school grounds. Defendant challenged the law, saying it exceeded the power of the Commerce Clause.

Question 4

United States v. Lopez

Reasoning

Answer 4

Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, it may regulate and protect instrumentalities of interstate commerce (i.e., persons or things in interstate commerce), even if they involve intrastate activities, and it may regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. § 922(q) does not fit into one of those categories. Nor does the legislative history show the law would affect interstate commerce. Possessing a gun in a school zone does not affect interstate commerce. It is a criminal law and a matter for the states. Accepting the government’s arguments would effectively give Congress police power over everything.

Question 5

Examples of Activities that Have a Substantial Effect on Interstate Commerce

Answer 5

• Economic or non-economic activities
• Jurisdictional elements
• Traditional areas of state concern
• Findings
• Activity or inactivity

Question 6

United States v. Morrison

Answer 6

Even if Congress finds a non-economic law would affect interstate commerce, Congress does not have authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate non-economic activity

Question 7

United States v. Morrison

Issue

Answer 7

Whether Congress’s findings that support a noneconomic law would allow Congress to enact it under the Commerce Clause.

Question 8

United States v. Morrison

Facts

Answer 8

Congress passed a law giving gender-abuse victims a federal cause of action. It found that this type of violence affected interstate commerce by raising insurance costs and discouraging migration into areas known for this kind of violence

Question 9

United States v. Morrison

Reasoning

Answer 9

This would override the states’ police power and allow Congress to regulate every crime since they all affect the economy.

Question 10

Gonzales v. Raich

Answer 10

The Commerce Clause allows Congress to prohibit the growth and use of marijuana in compliance with California law

Question 11

Gonzales v. Raich

Issue

Answer 11

Whether the Commerce Clause allows Congress to prohibit the growth and use of marijuana in compliance with California law

Question 12

Gonzales v. Raich

Facts

Answer 12

Two people wanted to use medical marijuana as prescribed by their doctor. One grew her own; the other got it from a third party for free. Respondents argue that the Controlled Substance Act went beyond Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause by banning intrastate manufacturing and possession of medical marijuana

Question 13

Gonzales v. Raich

Reasoning

Answer 13

In Wickard, the Court ordered that Congress had the power to regulate wheat grown for home consumption because the fact that it did not enter the stream of commerce affected interstate commerce. It’s the same here. Congress had a rational basis for the law: the high demand for marijuana might prompt people who grow it for themselves to sell it on the interstate market, which is against Congress’s intent to get rid of marijuana sales. It’s hard to tell whether the marijuana is home grown or not and there are concerns it might be sold illegally.

This case is too different from Lopez and Morrison for them to apply. There, the statutes at issue did not affect interstate commerce, while the CSA does.

There cannot be a separate class for medical marijuana users because Congress banned it for all purposes. Federal law trumps state law. The idea that all medical marijuana will stay in that community and not be sold for recreational use is unlikely.

Question 14

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Answer 14

The Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause because Congress can’t compel people to enter the market. and under the Necessary and Proper Clause because it was not related to an enumerated power. (A tax law made it constitutional.)

Question 15

Commerce Clause Analysis

Answer 15

1. Authorities
   
   1. The Commerce Clause (Article I, § 8, cl. 3)
   2. Gibbins v. Ogden
   3. United States v. Lopez
2. Other Cases
   
   1. Analogize/distinguish facts
   2. Use rational basis to interpret the “substantial effects” test
   3. Understand the relative significance of the different facts and legal elements