A whirlwind tour of the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence
There is a widely held view that Congress has virtually unlimited power to legislate, especially concerning economic matters. Consider, for example, the passage of the controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act two years ago. While Congress’s power to regulate the economy is not completely unbounded, it is very far-reaching indeed. However, it was not always so.
Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was powerless to address conflicting commercial regulations imposed by the several states. To remedy that flaw, the enumerated powers given to Congress under the Constitution included the authority “[t]o regulate Commerce … among the several States.”
At the time the Constitution was ratified, “commerce” referred to trade—buying and selling products—but it did not include all economic activity, such as manufacturing, agriculture, and labor. In the ratification debates, there was little deliberation over the Commerce power because it was understood to be an insignificant threat to local or non-commercial affairs. James Madison emphasized that point in Federalist No. 45.
Early Congresses rarely invoked the Commerce power. The Supreme Court’s first opportunity to determine its scope did not arise until Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). In that case, the Court held that Congress may regulate interstate commerce, but not commerce that doesn’t extend to or affect other states.
Over the next century, the Court reiterated that Congress’s Commerce power did not include regulation of production in anticipation of trade. In these decisions, the Court emphasized the distinction between commerce and other types of economic activity that are not commerce: “Without agriculture, manufacturing, mining, etc., commerce could not exist, but this fact does not suffice to subject them to the control of Congress” (Newberry v. United States, 1921).
A slight shift occurred in 1914, when the Court held that where interstate and intrastate aspects of commerce are so intermingled, the Constitution permits regulation of interstate commerce even if that results in incidental regulation of purely intrastate commerce. But in general, the Court’s view of Congress’ Commerce power remained unchanged. In 1935, the Court held that Congress may not regulate intrastate sales of poultry, and as late as 1936, the Court invalidated a federal law regulating labor because “the relation of employer and employee is a local relation.”
The Court’s century-old Commerce Clause jurisprudence ultimately bowed to far-reaching New Deal laws. InNLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act against a Commerce Clause challenge, holding that Congress may regulate intrastate production if it has a “close and substantial relation to interstate commerce.” And in United States v. Darby (1941), the Court declared that “[t]he power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states.”
Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is generally considered the most expansive Commerce Clause decision to date. In that case, the Court held that Congress could regulate a farmer’s production and consumption of homegrown wheat because even though his activity was local, was not commerce, and did not substantially or directly affect interstate commerce, it could, in combination with others’ similar conduct, affect interstate commerce.
In 1964 and 1971, the Supreme Court rejected Commerce Clause challenges to the application of civil rights laws to motels and restaurants, and to a federal criminal law prohibiting local instances of loan sharking. In these cases, the Court dismissed arguments that: the regulated activity was not commercial, Congress was legislating against moral wrongs, the activity was purely local, and the economic effect of the regulated activity was so small as to be trivial.
In United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court resisted further expansion, a reminder that even after the New Deal cases, Congress’s Commerce power still has outer limits. Because the federal laws in Lopez and Morrison (prohibiting possession of a gun near a school and gender-motivated violence, respectively) regulated local activity having no effect on interstate commerce, they were really exercises of the general police power that belongs exclusively to the states.
In the case now pending before the Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the issue is whether Congress has the power to compel non-participants into the health insurance market, so that they can then be regulated. It’s a novel question, and no precedent governs the Court’s decision. During its oral argument, the federal government asserted that every person is an “actuarial reality” whose current existence and eventual mortality creates a statistically measurable insurance risk.
By that theory, everyone is inescapably a “participant” in the health insurance market and therefore subject to federal regulation. Such metaphysical abstraction threatens not merely to further stretch, but finally to break the Framers’ structural design that for 225 years has preserved individual liberty and served as a check on unlimited federal power.
David J. Porter, J.D., is an attorney with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC and trustee of Grove City College.
- John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’ 477 Comments
- Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’ 450 Comments
- Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members 429 Comments
- Anti-Gay Bias or Fair Punishment? New Details Emerge About High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor 332 Comments
- Piers Morgan Bans Dana Loesch From His Show Following Twitter Spat: ‘Show Some Bloody Respect’ 317 Comments
- MSNBC Hosts Martin Bashir and Chris Hayes Claim London Machete Killers Aren’t Terrorists: ‘These Are Just Murderers’ Read More
- Did You Catch the Possibly Policy-Changing Ft. Hood Reference in Obama’s Terror Speech? Read More
- Dem. Rep. Apologizes for Attending ‘Racist, Anti-Semitic and Homophobic’ Speech Read More
- Church vs. State Complaint Leads City to Remove Christian Crosses on Water Tower — Now See What They’ve Been Replaced With 134 Comments
- Faith-Healing Parents Charged With Murder for Refusing Kids’ Medical Care — Should They Go to Prison? Read More
- Have You Had Scotch at a NJ TGI Friday’s Lately? You Might Have Been Drinking Rubbing Alcohol Read More
- Venezuelan President Blames Toilet Paper Shortage on the Rich Read More
- This Terrible Chart Shows the Change in Food Stamp Participation Over the Last 10 Years Read More
- Disney Makes Absolutely Mortifying Photoshop Mistake Read More
- Trey Gowdy at It Again — This Time with a Jack Bauer Reference! 114 Comments
- 6 Fascinating Spy Gadgets You’ll Probably Want (and Can Have) After Seeing Read More
- How Would a 3D-Printed Shotgun Slug Hold Up? Here’s the Test Read More
- The Incredible Role Facebook Played in the Aftermath of Devastating Okla. Tornado Read More
- Tech Company Demonstrates Remote Disabling of a ‘Smart Gun’ 130 Comments
- Meet the Blind Man Nicknamed ‘Midnight Gunslinger’ Who Has 80% Shot Accuracy Read More
- 3 al-Qaida members, 2 soldiers dead in Yemen clash
- Some damage reported from 5.7 quake in N. Calif.
- Obama: Sexual assault threatens trust in military
- Wash. I-5 bridge collapse caused by oversize load
- UK-bound Pakistan plane diverted, 2 men arrested
- Hurricane center: Beware of the storm surge
- Kid Rock, Rolling Stones on scalping, summer tours
- News Corp. board approves split, stock buyback