-
Use Cases
-
Resources
-
Pricing
1801 - 1835
% complete
1824
% complete
Interstate commerce occurs where more than one state in implicated/involved.
If a state and Congress both pass conflicting laws regulating interstate commerce, the federal law governs.
1888
% complete
Congress has authority under the interstate commerce power to fund interstate railroads because communication by land is key to making IC possible. (504). DId NOT rely on Congress's spending power but instead IC power.
National debate about the extent of spending power. For example, did Congress have power to spend federal funds on emergency disaster relief?(505)
1897 - 1937
% complete
A narrow reading of Congressional powers, especially to favor business's "propertarian" (pro-property) rights. Much of the law from this era is no longer good law.
1903
% complete
Power to regulate interstate commerce means power to prohibit goods in IC. Court may prohibit lottery tickets.
1918
% complete
Struck down federal law regulating child labor. Unlike lottery tickets, the goods themselves are harmless.
Congress cannot use IC power to regulate the conditions under which things are manufactured. That power remains with the states (495).
1922
% complete
Child Labor Tax is unconstitutional because Congress has no power to regulate Child Labor because child labor is a wholly intrastate activity---the child labor in this case only occurs in one state. Regulating intrastate labor is a power reserved solely to the states.
Court relies on Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
1923
% complete
State minimum wage laws violate the freedom of contract.
1935
% complete
Congress does not have the authority to regulate wholly intrastate activities that have only an indirect effect on interstate commerce.
Even though chickens are obtained through IC, Congress cannot regulate poultry growers because the chickens are going to be sold intrastate, are no longer in the flow. Also distinguishes between direct and indirect effects on IC, here, regulation not ok because effect is indirect. (502).
1936
% complete
Struck down Bituminous Coal Conservation Act (BCCA) that regulated the coal mining industry by establishing standards for fair competition, production, wages, hours, and labor relations because the manufacturing of coal at local mines and issues pertaining to the wages, hours, and organizing of local employees are local issues, affecting only the particular state in which these activities take place.
1936
% complete
Agricultural Adjustment Act is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing and spending power because Congress has no enumeratd power to regulate agricultural production (intrastate), and Congress may not use the power to invade the reserved rights of the states under the Tenth Amendment.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to spend federal funds in return for agreements by farmers to reduce their productive acreage—and thus, presumably, raise the prices of the crops being produced.
Although the Court adopts Hamilton's view that Congress's tax and spending power is an independent power to provide for the general welfare (599) and NOT tied to the other enumerated powers, the Court found this use of tax and spending power unconstitutional because the purpose of the law is to regulate agricultural production, which is beyond Congress’s IC power. (599)
Doesn’t matter that this is merely offering voluntary benefits the farmer can deny. The benefits are so large they are coercive.
Even if this were merely voluntary and not coercive, Congress cannot invade state jurisdiction and purchase individual action it wants to see. (600).
1937 - 1953
% complete
Beginning of Court's large degree of deference to Congressional powers/laws.
1937
% complete
A state may regulate the minimum wage for the purpose of promoting employees’ health, safety and general welfare.
END OF LOCHNER ERA, BEGINNING OF NEW DEAL COURT ERA
Overturned Adkins (1923) which said minimum wage laws violated the freedom of contract.
So-called “switch in time that saved nine.”The story goes that Justice Roberts was going to vote to strike down Washington state’s minimum wage law, but switched to vote to uphold it because he was worried FDR would pack the Court with justices that would favor FDR's pro-regulation New Deal policies.
1937
% complete
Congress may regulate intrastate activities (like labor relations under its Commerce Clause power) that “have such a close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions.” (607)
1937
% complete
New Deal Court upheld National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934 which placed taxes on firearms dealers, manufactures, and purchasers as constitutional.
Reasoning: An Act of Congress which on its face purports to be an exercise of the taxing power is not any less so because the tax is burdensome or tends to restrict or suppress the thing taxed. Every tax regulates the thing it taxes to some extent. This regulatory effect does not make the tax any less a tax. Indeed, courts may not delve into the “hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it . . . .”
1937
% complete
Social Security Act’s unemployment compensation program that requires employers to pay a federal tax, but receive a 90 percent credit on the tax if they contribute to a state unemployment compensation fund that meets federal requirements, is not unconstitutional because it is not coercive. (620).
In exercising its constitutional taxing power, Congress may not enact a law that coerces the states contrary to the autonomy guaranteed to them under the Tenth Amendment.
1941
% complete
Congress may regulate the labor standards involved in the manufacture of goods for interstate commerce and may exclude from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Overturns Hammer v. Dagenhart.
Ends manufacturing/commerce divide (Carter). Congress can regulate the labor standards involved in the manufacture of goods for interstate commerce. IC power is not limited solely to IC, but “extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce . . . as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end”) (613).
1942
% complete
Congress can regulate noncommercial intrastate economic activity if that activity “exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” It doesn’t matter if such effect is “direct” or “indirect.” (614).
Aggregation Principle: Filburn decreases the amount of wheat purchased in the market and negatively impacts the price of wheat grown for interstate commerce. It does not matter that Filburn himself only exerts a small impact on the wheat market. When taken together with all the other farmers similarly situated, Filburn’s activity has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
1953 - 1969
% complete
Continues deference to Congressional powers. Most important Court in US history for upholding fundamental rights and applying them against the states, especially regarding civil rights like desegregation. Upheld laws that prohibited private discrimination using the interstate commerce clause.
1964
% complete
Upheld Title II of 1964 Civil Rights Act desegregation command as applied to motel serving 75% out of state clientele, accessible by interstate highways. Commerce Clause gave “ample power” to regulate.
Doesn’t matter that Congress is attempting to prevent a moral wrong – racial discrimination clearly disrupts interstate commerce. 629.
1964
% complete
Upheld 1964 Civil Rights Act as applied to restaurant that refused to serve black customers because 50% of their food came from out of state (as did much of the food/ingredients). Racial discrimination places burden on IC by making minorities reluctant to travel.
1969 - 1986
% complete
Although Burger was a Nixon appointee and more conservative than Warren, the Burger Court continued strong deference to Congressional powers that began with New Deal Court.
1971
% complete
Upheld Congressional law banning extortionate credit transactions. Fine to apply to purely intrastate extortion because Congress can regulate one trivial instance so long as class of activity can be generally banned as part of IC power (632). Also, organized crime is interstate.
1971
% complete
Court upheld application of 1964 Civil Rights Act to an Arkansas resort that had a snack bar serving hot dogs with bread that moved in interstate commerce, and that presumably had at least one person who had traveled interstate to be there. Shows nexus to IC does not need to be very close. (631).
1986 - 2005
% complete
Court now says to Congress regarding commerce power: this far, but no farther! Court does not overturn past commerce cases, but tries to set the outer limits of the power.
So-called "new federalism" emphasis on the federal government not encroaching too much on states' rights. Concern among conservatives that the federal government is too powerful.
Remember, this is post-Watergate/Vietnam Reagan era where there is a distrust of the federal government that did not exist during New Deal through Kennedy.
1987
% complete
Constitutional use of spending power:
Congress gave states federal highway funds, threatened to withhold 5% of federal highway funding if state allowed people under 21 to drink.
Court said this is ok so long as the federal spending is:
1) In pursuit of general welfare
2) Unambiguous, letting states know consequence of their choice
3) Condition on grant is related to federal interest in national program (highways)
4) Activity states are being required to undertake cannot be unconstitutional (713)
1995
% complete
Court struck down Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, which forbid any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that he knows is a school zone.
Unconstitutional because Congress may only regulate intrastate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Possessing a gun near a school is not an economic activity.
2000
% complete
Congress does not have the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate violence against women because it is not an economic activity.
Struck down Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which contained a provision for a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-based violence, even when victims did not file criminal charges.
Note: Prof. Amar believes that VAWA should have been upheld under the 14th Amendment instead of the IC power.
2005
% complete
Congress may regulate the wholly intrastate, non-commercial personal use and production of home-grown marijuana because this is economic activity that, taken in the aggregate, could rationally be seen as having a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
Raich's activity could be seen as rationally having a substantial effect on interstate commerce because there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market for marijuana. Applies Wickard's reasoning.
Scalia concurrence (not law): Congress may regulate even noneconomic
local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce---like the CSA in Raich (683).
2005 - Present
% complete
Continues Rehnquist Court's "new federalism" and concern that Congresional power has gone too far. Does not overturn past cases, however. But continues to set outer limits of those powers.
2012
% complete
Under Commerce power, the Obamacare individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional because the commerce power cannot compel economic activity: Congress has never attempted to rely on commerce power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product (in this case, health insurance).
2012
% complete
TAX:
The individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance falls under Congress’s enumerated powers to “lay and collect taxes” – it’s paid to Treasury by taxpayers; it’s enforced by the IRS—so it’s a “functional” tax.
Unlike commerce, there is less danger of congressional “control over individual behavior” with taxes.
Roberts: “The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” (710).
SPENDING:
"The Medicaid provisions of the Affordable Care Act... require States to expand their Medicaid programs by 2014 to cover all individuals under the age of 65 with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty line." Other expansions as well.
Congress can use its spending power to persuade states to accept federal funds and conditions, but not to coerce or compel. States must have a legitimate choice whether to accept federal conditions in exchange for federal funds (716).
Medicaid expansion is coercive by threatening to eliminate states’ total Medicaid funding (including the medicaid funding the states already recieve under their current medicaid programs), which is an independent grant not related to the expansion (717).
Distinguished from Dole: In Dole, the government’s condition was “directly related to one of the main purposes for which highway funds are expended—safe interstate travel,” and it was only “relatively mild encouragement.”
In South Dakota v. Dole, the loss of 5% of federal highway funds at stake constituted less than half of one percent of South Dakota’s budget at the time. By contrast, "a State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely ‘‘a relatively small percentage’’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of
it. Medicaid spending accounts for over 20 percent of the average State’s total budget, with federal funds covering 50 to 83 percent of those costs. (718)." Roberts says this is a "gun to the head" of the states.