The Commerce Power and its Limits

Question 1

Why is it good to have a uniform national economy rather than a state-by-state economy?

Answer 1

• Uniformity

- Efficiency

Question 2

Gibbons v. Ogden

Answer 2

• Pre-New Deal
• NY ferry license
• NY claims overreach of interstate commerce to regulate NY commerce
• Court characterizes it as commerce
• Court holds the Fed. Govt. does have authority to regulate NY commerce
• Except when it is exclusively interstate

Question 3

U.S. v. E.C. Knight

Answer 3

• Sherman act forbidding monopolies
• Pre-New Deal
• Manufacturing effects “incidentally and indirectly” so not within commerce power

Question 4

Champion v. Ames

Answer 4

• Congress prohibiting interstate lottery tickets
• Pre-New Deal
• Regulating morality through lottery
• Court held constitutional

Question 5

Hammer v. Dagenhart

Answer 5

• Congress trying to regulate transportation of goods make by kids working 8 hours or 6 days
• Pre-New Deal
• Court held unconstitutional
• Court distinguished by holding that because it wasn’t part of commerce yet, it wasn’t within Congress’ power

Question 6

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.

Answer 6

• NY chicken at cheaper price
• New Deal era
• Fed. Govt. argued company not following wage laws effects commerce by driving prices down
• Court holds this unconstitutional

Question 7

Carter v. Cater Coal

Answer 7

• Labor regulation on coal miners
• New Deal era
• Court held that union activities are local in nature so regulation is unconstitutional

Question 8

NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.

Answer 8

• Steel co. firing workers in union
• New Deal era
• Court held this was constitutional because it had a substantial relationship with interstate commerce, switching the previous opinion

Question 9

U.S. v. Darby

Answer 9

• Lumber manufacturer challenging labor act
• New Deal era
• Substantial effects test
• Court held the law was constitutional

Question 10

Wickard v. Filburn

Answer 10

• Congress limits wheat production to stabilize price
• New Deal era
• Aggregation principle
• Substantial effect on interstate commerce

Question 11

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Answer 11

• New Deal era

- Passed under commerce clause because it can reach private individuals, Equal protection clause can’t

Question 12

Katzenbach v. McClung

Answer 12

• New Deal era

- Constitutional exercise of commerce clause through aggregate and “rational basis”

Question 13

U.S. v. Lopez

Answer 13

• Contemporary
• Guns in schools
• Congress can regulate: channels, instrumentalities, and substantial effects on interstate commerce
• Fed. Govt. argues this case falls under aggregate effect
• Court holds aggregation principle cannot be used for non-economic regulation
• Jurisdictional Nexus links law to enumerated power, making it constitutional
• May have been constitutional if part of a larger regulatory scheme

Question 14

U.S. v. Morrisson

Answer 14

• VAWA originally tried to let victims sue for damages
• Contemporary
• Court held this was not a constitutional exercise of Commerce Power
• No Jurisdictional Nexus
• Non-economic, so no aggregation

Question 15

Gonzales v. Raich

Answer 15

• Medical MJ
• Contemporary
• As-applied challenge to terminal patients
• Court held there was a substantial effect and aggregation and part of a regulatory scheme, so constitutional
• Congress can regulate even non-economic activity if it is part of a general regulation of interstate commerce

Question 16

NFIB v. Sebelius (Market)

Answer 16

• Contemporary
• Govt. argues everyone uses healthcare eventually, so within commerce power and part of a larger regulatory scheme
• Court holds this exceeds commerce power because it forces people to enter the market
• Distinction between activity and inactivity

Question 17

What is the Dormant Commerce Clause?

Answer 17

-When Congress is silent or “dormant” on an issue

Question 18

What are the categories under the Dormant Commerce Clause?

Answer 18

• State laws that facially discriminate against out-of-state commerce
• Facially neutral state laws whose purpose or effect is to discriminate against out-of-state commerce
• Facially neutral state laws whose purpose is not to discriminate against out-of-state commerce but have a disproportionate adverse effect on interstate commerce

Question 19

Philidelphia v. New Jersey

Answer 19

• NJ waste
• Dormant commerce
• Court holds that states can’t discriminate against out-of-state waste unless there is “some reason, apart from their origin, to treat them differently”

Question 20

Maine v. Taylor

Answer 20

• Live baitfish
• Category 1 exception
• The facial discrimination is explained by a distinction different than in state v. out of state

Question 21

United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Authority

Answer 21

• Waste to particular facility
• Category 1 exception
• Government entities that engage in traditional government functions

Question 22

South-Central Timber Development Inc. v. Wunnicke

Answer 22

• Alaska Timber
• Category 1 exception
• Market Participant exception
• Court held this was not a market participation exception because the company was a timber market, not a processing market, participant

Question 23

Baldwin v. Seelig

Answer 23

• NY regulating VT milk
• Court held this was facially neutral but had a discriminatory purpose or effect
• Unconstitutional because category 2 can’t suppress other states

Question 24

Hunt v. Washington

Answer 24

• WA apples
• State claimed regulation was for consumer protection
• Court held unconstitutional because it didn’t actually protect consumers and it was discriminatory
• Category 2

Question 25

Pike

Answer 25

• AZ Cantaloupe
• Category 3
• Balancing test used by the court
• Where a nondiscriminatory law effectuates a legitimate local interest and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits
• Where there is a legitimate local interest it must be measured against the burden it composes
• Critique of this test is that it is judicially created