NCP: Pre-New Deal Rules / Evolution

Question 1

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)(p.78)

Answer 1

i) Facts: Steamboat rights to travel from NY to NJ. NYC licence v. Congress licence.
(1) The people v. lettuce distinction: Under NY view, Congress has the power to regulate goods, but not people
ii) Rule: Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce does not stop at the external boundary lines of a State. Congress’ power to regulate within its sphere is exclusive.
(1) Article 1, §8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among several states, therefore it can regulate transportation between states.
(2) Commerce means more than traffic, it encompasses navigation.

Question 2

The Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames) (1903)(p.83)

Answer 2

Congress prohibited carriage of lottery tickets across state lines.

i) Rule: As long as something business-related is going on between states, Congress can regulate it regardless of the absence of an economic motive.
(1) This controversy was conservative regarding mechanism (clearly interstate) but expansive regarding motive (congress was regulating something they considered immoral, not based on economic motives but moral ones).

Question 3

Shreveport Case (Houston, East & West Texas Ry. v. United States) (1914)(p.85)

Answer 3

i) Facts: TX practicing railroad price discrimination between trains solely within TX and those travelling between Louisiana and TX.
ii) Rule: Congress can regulate any intrastate transaction so long as it is in the interest of interstate commerce.
(1) This controversy was conservative regarding motive (clearly commerce) but expansive regarding the mechanism (involved intrastate business).
(2) Note that the court places some attention on the fact that RR are in the stream of commerce/instrumentalists of interstate commerce

Question 4

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)(p.88)

Answer 4

The Child Labour Act prohibited the interstate transportation of goods produced with child labour. Overruled in Darby

i) Held: Congress exceeded its commerce power in this case. The power of Commerce to regulate commerce does not include the power to regulate the production of goods intended for commerce.
(1) Combining non-commercial motive (the Lottery Case) and interstate transactions that have some impact on interstate commerce (The Shreveport Case) is too attenuated
4. Modern era of the Commerce Clause: Post-New Deal