commerce clause 6-1. commerce power article i section 8 clause 3 article i section 8 clause 3...

Commerce ClauseCommerce Clause

6-16-1

Commerce PowerCommerce Power

Article I Section 8 Clause 3Article I Section 8 Clause 3 Regulate foreign commerce and Regulate foreign commerce and

interstate commerceinterstate commerce Most powerful power?Most powerful power?

CommerceCommerce

Define “commerce”Define “commerce” Define “interstate”Define “interstate”

Can Congress Make This Law?Can Congress Make This Law?1.1. Recently, a freight train crashed when it entered Kansasippi, Recently, a freight train crashed when it entered Kansasippi,

because the train operator didn’t recognize Kansasippi’s because the train operator didn’t recognize Kansasippi’s unique warning signal. Congress wants to pass a law that unique warning signal. Congress wants to pass a law that requires all states to use uniform warning signs and signals requires all states to use uniform warning signs and signals for trains. for trains.

2.2. Tomato prices have been plummeting and tomato farmers Tomato prices have been plummeting and tomato farmers aren’t making enough money to keep planting their crops. In aren’t making enough money to keep planting their crops. In order to limit the overall tomato crop, thereby raising tomato order to limit the overall tomato crop, thereby raising tomato prices, Congress wants to pass a law that prohibits all U.S. prices, Congress wants to pass a law that prohibits all U.S. farmers that sell vegetables from growing more than 500 farmers that sell vegetables from growing more than 500 pounds of tomatoes each – even for their own consumption. pounds of tomatoes each – even for their own consumption.

3.3. Lawmakers are dismayed by the number of shootings that Lawmakers are dismayed by the number of shootings that take place in schools. Congress wants to pass a law that take place in schools. Congress wants to pass a law that makes it a federal crime to possess a gun on the property of a makes it a federal crime to possess a gun on the property of a public school. public school.

4.4. Congress wants to pass a law setting a national speed limit at Congress wants to pass a law setting a national speed limit at 55 mph. 55 mph.

5.5. Congress is concerned about drug use, so it wants to pass a Congress is concerned about drug use, so it wants to pass a law making it a crime to manufacture, distribute, or possess law making it a crime to manufacture, distribute, or possess certain drugs and narcotics, including marijuana, cocaine, certain drugs and narcotics, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines. heroin, and methamphetamines.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

State of NY granted steamboat State of NY granted steamboat monopoly permit to Aaron Ogden monopoly permit to Aaron Ogden (between NY and NJ)(between NY and NJ)

Thomas Gibbons owed competing Thomas Gibbons owed competing line w/ license from fed govtline w/ license from fed govt

Ogden sued Gibbons Ogden sued Gibbons Ogden won Ogden won Gibbons appealed Gibbons appealed Fed govt > Fed govt >

state?state?


Does commerce only involve Does commerce only involve products?products?


Court ruled all forms of business Court ruled all forms of business across state lines = “commerce”across state lines = “commerce”

Narrow or broad interpretation? Narrow or broad interpretation?

Gibbons vs. Ogden (1824)Gibbons vs. Ogden (1824)

Expanding definition of commerce:Expanding definition of commerce: BroadcastingBroadcasting BankingBanking FinanceFinance Air/water pollutionAir/water pollution

Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia (1851)Port of Philadelphia (1851)

The Port of Philadelphia had a requirement The Port of Philadelphia had a requirement that any ship entering that port had to that any ship entering that port had to take on a local pilot as it made its way into take on a local pilot as it made its way into the port. Ship owners sued, arguing that the port. Ship owners sued, arguing that they were engaged in interstate they were engaged in interstate commerce and that the local law was commerce and that the local law was inconsistent with the Commerce Clause. inconsistent with the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the power to regulate commerce was that the power to regulate commerce was concurrent. That is, concurrent. That is, both the federal both the federal government and the states had the government and the states had the authority to regulate commerceauthority to regulate commerce. .


Hammer v. DagenhartHammer v. Dagenhart (1918) (1918) Congress banned from interstate commerce Congress banned from interstate commerce

any and all goods manufactured in factories any and all goods manufactured in factories that employed children under the age of 14. that employed children under the age of 14. Dagenhart, whose two children worked, sued Dagenhart, whose two children worked, sued and argued that the law exceeded and argued that the law exceeded congressional Commerce Clause authority. congressional Commerce Clause authority. The Supreme Court agreed with the father, The Supreme Court agreed with the father, ruling that ruling that Congress did not have the Congress did not have the power to regulate the manufacture of a power to regulate the manufacture of a good simply because the good might be good simply because the good might be shipped in interstate commerce.shipped in interstate commerce.

Narrow or broad interpretation?Narrow or broad interpretation?

Carter v. Carter Coal Co.Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936) (1936)

Congress passed a law that set maximum hours Congress passed a law that set maximum hours and minimum wages for workers in coal mines. and minimum wages for workers in coal mines. The law was challenged, and the Court ruled it The law was challenged, and the Court ruled it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that the law was regulating production, not that the law was regulating production, not commerce. commerce. Production was a purely local Production was a purely local activity, even though the materials activity, even though the materials produced would be sold in interstate produced would be sold in interstate commercecommerce. Although the conditions under which . Although the conditions under which coal miners work might affect interstate coal miners work might affect interstate commerce, that effect is too indirect to allow commerce, that effect is too indirect to allow Congress to regulate it under the commerce Congress to regulate it under the commerce power. power.


NLRB v. Jones & LaughlinNLRB v. Jones & Laughlin (1937) (1937)

The National Labor Relations Act created a federal The National Labor Relations Act created a federal board charged with ensuring that private employers board charged with ensuring that private employers did not stop employees from forming labor unions. did not stop employees from forming labor unions. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company fired employees Jones & Laughlin Steel Company fired employees who attempted to unionize and sued the National who attempted to unionize and sued the National Labor Relations Board. The company argued that the Labor Relations Board. The company argued that the law is unconstitutional when it regulates events that law is unconstitutional when it regulates events that occur wholly within a state. The Supreme Court occur wholly within a state. The Supreme Court relaxed its earlier position, ruling that relaxed its earlier position, ruling that Congress Congress has the authority to regulate even wholly has the authority to regulate even wholly intrastate activity if that activity might intrastate activity if that activity might significantly affect interstate commerce, as the significantly affect interstate commerce, as the firing of employees would.firing of employees would.


NLRB v. Jones & LaughlinNLRB v. Jones & Laughlin (1937) (1937)

Dissenting justices in the case noted, Dissenting justices in the case noted, “almost anything—marriage, birth, “almost anything—marriage, birth, death—may in some fashion affect death—may in some fashion affect commerce.”commerce.”

What can’t Congress regulate?What can’t Congress regulate?

U.S. v. DarbyU.S. v. Darby (1941) (1941) During the Great Depression, Congress said companies that During the Great Depression, Congress said companies that

manufacture goods for use in interstate commerce had to manufacture goods for use in interstate commerce had to pay a minimum wage and have limited hours. A pay a minimum wage and have limited hours. A manufacturer who was charged with violating the law manufacturer who was charged with violating the law argued that the law was unconstitutional because it argued that the law was unconstitutional because it regulated the intrastate manufacture of goods, not regulated the intrastate manufacture of goods, not commerce. The commerce. The Supreme Court reversed its earlier Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision and ruled that Congress can ban from decision and ruled that Congress can ban from interstate commerce goods that are harmful to the interstate commerce goods that are harmful to the country, including goods made in a harmful way.country, including goods made in a harmful way. Also, Also, Congress has the authority to regulate the in-Congress has the authority to regulate the in-state manufacture of goods that may end up in state manufacture of goods that may end up in interstate commerce.interstate commerce. The Court also emphasized that it The Court also emphasized that it had no authority to question the “motive or purpose” that had no authority to question the “motive or purpose” that Congress had in mind – meaning that it’s not the Court’s Congress had in mind – meaning that it’s not the Court’s role to judge the wisdom of a law, only whether the role to judge the wisdom of a law, only whether the Congress had the power to pass the law. Congress had the power to pass the law.

Broad or narrow interpretation?Broad or narrow interpretation?

Wickard v. FilburnWickard v. Filburn (1942) (1942) In an effort to increase wheat prices during the Great In an effort to increase wheat prices during the Great

Depression, Congress passed a law limiting the amount of Depression, Congress passed a law limiting the amount of wheat that some farmers could grow. Farmer Filburn said wheat that some farmers could grow. Farmer Filburn said that he intended to use at least some of the wheat for that he intended to use at least some of the wheat for personal consumption, and that Congress could not stop personal consumption, and that Congress could not stop him from growing wheat that he did not intend to sell in him from growing wheat that he did not intend to sell in because he was not selling the wheat or giving it away, and because he was not selling the wheat or giving it away, and therefore not involved in interstate commerce. The therefore not involved in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court ruled for the government, concluding that Supreme Court ruled for the government, concluding that Congress can regulate intrastate activity that, in the Congress can regulate intrastate activity that, in the aggregate, would substantially affect interstate aggregate, would substantially affect interstate commercecommerce. The farmer’s decision to self-supply wheat . The farmer’s decision to self-supply wheat meant that he would not buy wheat from the market. If meant that he would not buy wheat from the market. If many farmers did the same thing, they would substantially many farmers did the same thing, they would substantially affect interstate commerce.affect interstate commerce.


Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)States (1964)

Civil Rights Act Civil Rights Act prohibited prohibited discrimination in places of public discrimination in places of public accommodation such as restaurants, accommodation such as restaurants, hotels, and motels. Prohibited job hotels, and motels. Prohibited job discriminationdiscrimination

Motel owner said business local Motel owner said business local motel not interstatemotel not interstate

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)States (1964)

Court ruled that they served Court ruled that they served interstate travelers and sold food interstate travelers and sold food that crossed state linesthat crossed state lines


Katzenbach v. McClungKatzenbach v. McClung (1964) (1964) The owner of a small, segregated, BBQ restaurant The owner of a small, segregated, BBQ restaurant

in Alabama argued that the Civil Rights Act was in Alabama argued that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional as applied to him. He said his unconstitutional as applied to him. He said his business and customers were strictly local, and business and customers were strictly local, and that just because a substantial amount of his food that just because a substantial amount of his food moved in interstate commerce did not mean that moved in interstate commerce did not mean that Congress could regulate his restaurant under the Congress could regulate his restaurant under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that Court ruled that Congress could “protect and foster” Congress could “protect and foster” interstate commerce by regulating the interstate commerce by regulating the behavior of restaurants serving food which behavior of restaurants serving food which travels in interstate commerce.travels in interstate commerce. The Court The Court wrote that Congress had “ample” reason to believe wrote that Congress had “ample” reason to believe that discrimination at such restaurants burdens that discrimination at such restaurants burdens interstate commerce, in part because African-interstate commerce, in part because African-Americans avoid traveling to areas that include Americans avoid traveling to areas that include discriminatory restaurants discriminatory restaurants


U.S. v. LopezU.S. v. Lopez (1995) (1995)

Congress passed a law making it a federal Congress passed a law making it a federal crime to carry guns within a school zone. crime to carry guns within a school zone. Lopez, who was convicted of doing just that, Lopez, who was convicted of doing just that, challenged the law as unconstitutional. challenged the law as unconstitutional. For For the first time in decades, the Supreme the first time in decades, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause authority.its Commerce Clause authority. The Court The Court struck down the law, writing that struck down the law, writing that carrying a carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic gun in a school zone is not an economic activityactivity. .


U.S. v. MorrisonU.S. v. Morrison (2000) (2000)

Congress passed a law allowing the victims Congress passed a law allowing the victims of gender-based harm to sue their attackers of gender-based harm to sue their attackers in federal court. When a female victim of in federal court. When a female victim of alleged rape sued her attacker, he alleged rape sued her attacker, he challenged that law as unconstitutional. challenged that law as unconstitutional. The The Supreme Court ruled that Congress Supreme Court ruled that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause exceeded its Commerce Clause authority. The violence against women authority. The violence against women addressed by the act is not an addressed by the act is not an economic activity.economic activity.


Gonzales v. RaichGonzales v. Raich (2005) (2005) Angel Raich grew and used marijuana at her home Angel Raich grew and used marijuana at her home

for medicinal purposes. She did not sell or trade the for medicinal purposes. She did not sell or trade the marijuana in interstate commerce, and California marijuana in interstate commerce, and California law allowed her activity. The federal government law allowed her activity. The federal government criminalized all uses of marijuana, and prosecuted criminalized all uses of marijuana, and prosecuted Raich. She countered that the law, as applied to her, Raich. She countered that the law, as applied to her, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the federal government's authority to prosecute Raich federal government's authority to prosecute Raich for growing her own marijuana plants. The for growing her own marijuana plants. The Court Court ruled that Congress can regulate non-ruled that Congress can regulate non-economic, wholly intrastate activity if “failure economic, wholly intrastate activity if “failure to do so” might undermine a broader to do so” might undermine a broader regulatory scheme.regulatory scheme. Homegrown marijuana might Homegrown marijuana might find its way into interstate commerce, which would find its way into interstate commerce, which would disrupt Congress’s valid attempt to completely ban disrupt Congress’s valid attempt to completely ban marijuana from interstate commerce. marijuana from interstate commerce.


The Drinking AgeThe Drinking Age

State or federal law?State or federal law?

““Spending Powers”Spending Powers” Conditions on the funds it allocates to the Conditions on the funds it allocates to the

states.states. mid-1980s, Congress conditioned federal mid-1980s, Congress conditioned federal

highway monies on the states’ passage of highway monies on the states’ passage of laws setting the minimum drinking age at 21. laws setting the minimum drinking age at 21.

Laws like these are typically allowed under Laws like these are typically allowed under Congress’s power to “lay and collect taxes…Congress’s power to “lay and collect taxes…to pay the Debts and provide for the to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” United States.”

Not the Commerce Clause. While Congress Not the Commerce Clause. While Congress might not be able to pass a law setting a might not be able to pass a law setting a minimum drinking age, states can do so. minimum drinking age, states can do so.

Commerce ClauseCommerce Clause

The Commerce Clause serves two The Commerce Clause serves two functions: functions: as a source of congressional authority, as a source of congressional authority, and as a limitation on state legislative and as a limitation on state legislative

power. power. ““dormant commerce clause” dormant commerce clause” collateral implication: the need to avoid collateral implication: the need to avoid

state measures that unduly burden or state measures that unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. discriminate against interstate commerce.

Return to the examples at the Return to the examples at the beginning…beginning…

Look back at the court cases we Look back at the court cases we discussed. Using precedence, could discussed. Using precedence, could Congress make these laws?Congress make these laws?

Law banning child laborLaw banning child labor Law limiting tomato growingLaw limiting tomato growing Law banning guns in school Law banning guns in school

zoneszones

Can Congress Make This Law?Can Congress Make This Law? Law banning child laborLaw banning child labor: Yes, this law would be permitted : Yes, this law would be permitted

under the Commerce Clause today. In under the Commerce Clause today. In US v. DarbyUS v. Darby, the , the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to regulate the in-state manufacture of goods that may end up regulate the in-state manufacture of goods that may end up in interstate commerce. Congress can ban from interstate in interstate commerce. Congress can ban from interstate commerce goods that are harmful to the country, including commerce goods that are harmful to the country, including goods made in a harmful way.goods made in a harmful way.

Law limiting tomato growingLaw limiting tomato growing: Yes, this law would : Yes, this law would probably be permitted under the Commerce Clause today. It probably be permitted under the Commerce Clause today. It is similar to the Court’s decision in is similar to the Court’s decision in Wickard v. FilburnWickard v. Filburn, , considered to be the most expansive ruling on the Commerce considered to be the most expansive ruling on the Commerce Clause. The Clause. The WickardWickard decision remains in effect today and the decision remains in effect today and the Court cited the case in the 2005 ruling in Court cited the case in the 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. RaichGonzales v. Raich. .

Law banning guns in school zonesLaw banning guns in school zones: No, this law would not : No, this law would not be permitted under the Commerce Clause today. The be permitted under the Commerce Clause today. The Supreme Court ruled on this law in Supreme Court ruled on this law in US v. Lopez US v. Lopez in 1995, in 1995, saying that carrying guns in school zones was not an saying that carrying guns in school zones was not an economic activity.economic activity.

commerce clause 6-1. commerce power article i section 8 clause 3 article i section 8 clause 3...

Documents

interstate commerce

commerce clause

commerce court

foreign commerce

commerce narrow

gibbons ogden

commerce power article

interstate slide