The Commerce Power and its Limits Flashcards
(25 cards)
1
Q
Why is it good to have a uniform national economy rather than a state-by-state economy?
A
- Uniformity
- Efficiency
2
Q
Gibbons v. Ogden
A
- 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
3
Q
U.S. v. E.C. Knight
A
- Sherman act forbidding monopolies
- Pre-New Deal
- Manufacturing effects “incidentally and indirectly” so not within commerce power
4
Q
Champion v. Ames
A
- Congress prohibiting interstate lottery tickets
- Pre-New Deal
- Regulating morality through lottery
- Court held constitutional
5
Q
Hammer v. Dagenhart
A
- 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
6
Q
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.
A
- 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
7
Q
Carter v. Cater Coal
A
- Labor regulation on coal miners
- New Deal era
- Court held that union activities are local in nature so regulation is unconstitutional
8
Q
NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.
A
- 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
9
Q
U.S. v. Darby
A
- Lumber manufacturer challenging labor act
- New Deal era
- Substantial effects test
- Court held the law was constitutional
10
Q
Wickard v. Filburn
A
- Congress limits wheat production to stabilize price
- New Deal era
- Aggregation principle
- Substantial effect on interstate commerce
11
Q
Civil Rights Act of 1964
A
- New Deal era
- Passed under commerce clause because it can reach private individuals, Equal protection clause can’t
12
Q
Katzenbach v. McClung
A
- New Deal era
- Constitutional exercise of commerce clause through aggregate and “rational basis”
13
Q
U.S. v. Lopez
A
- 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
14
Q
U.S. v. Morrisson
A
- 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
15
Q
Gonzales v. Raich
A
- 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
16
Q
NFIB v. Sebelius (Market)
A
- 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
17
Q
What is the Dormant Commerce Clause?
A
-When Congress is silent or “dormant” on an issue
18
Q
What are the categories under the Dormant Commerce Clause?
A
- 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
19
Q
Philidelphia v. New Jersey
A
- 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”
20
Q
Maine v. Taylor
A
- Live baitfish
- Category 1 exception
- The facial discrimination is explained by a distinction different than in state v. out of state
21
Q
United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Authority
A
- Waste to particular facility
- Category 1 exception
- Government entities that engage in traditional government functions
22
Q
South-Central Timber Development Inc. v. Wunnicke
A
- 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
23
Q
Baldwin v. Seelig
A
- 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
24
Q
Hunt v. Washington
A
- 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
25
Pike
- 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
