line with the commerce clause. An exception is the 1995 case, United States v. Lopez. The case centered
around the legality of the Gun-Free School Zone Act, which was a federal law that outlawed the possession of
guns within 1,000 feet of a school. In a landmark case, the Court ruled that the Act was outside the scope of
the commerce clause, and that Congress did not have the authority to regulate in an area that had “nothing to
do with commerce, or any sort of enterprise.”
A recent controversy pertaining to the commerce clause relates to the passing of the Affordable Care Act, as
described earlier. Protestors claimed that the individual mandate aspect of the ACA should be treated as a
regulation that affects interstate commerce. According to their argument, after the Act was implemented,
there would be an increase in the sale and purchase of health care insurance, such that the market for health
care should be seen as being significantly impacted by the Act. However, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, Justice Roberts, ruled that actions that create new business activity do not affect interstate commerce.
Police Power and the Dormant Commerce Clause
The authority of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce has, at times, come into conflict with
state authority over the same area of regulation. The courts have tried to resolve these conflicts with reference
to the police power of the states.
Police power refers to the residual powers granted to each state to safeguard the welfare of their inhabitants.
Examples of areas in which states tend to exercise their police power are zoning regulations, building codes,
and sanitation standards for eating places. However, there are times when the states’ use of police power
impacts interstate commerce. If the exercise of the power interferes with, or discriminates against, interstate
commerce, then the action is generally deemed to be unconstitutional. The limitation on the authority of
states to regulate in areas that impact interstate commerce is known as the dormant commerce clause.
In using the dormant commerce clause to resolve conflicts between state and federal authority, the courts
consider the extent to which the state law has a legitimate purpose. If it is determined that the state law has a
legitimate purpose, then the court tries to determine whether the impact on interstate commerce is in the
interest of the citizens of the state, and will rule accordingly. For instance, an ordinance that banned spray
paint, issued in the city of Chicago, was challenged by paint manufacturers under the dormant commerce
clause, but was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals because the ban was intended to reduce graffiti
and related crimes.
Today, Congress uses its authority to regulate commercial activity in four general areas relating to the
commerce clause:
1.
Regulation of the channels of interstate commerce
2.
Regulation of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce
3.
Regulation of intangibles and tangibles that cross state lines
4.
Regulation of activities that are deemed to be both economic and to have a substantial impact on
interstate commerce
Area of
Regulation
Explanation
Examples
Table 4.1
46
Chapter 4 Business and the United States Constitution
This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col30149/1.5