Congress may control production by regulating shipments in interstate commerce power” conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause “Plenary Motive of regulation are matters for legislative judgment, Court said a law is constitutional so long as it is of Congress’s within the scope power’ tenth amendment would not be used by the judiciary as a basis for invalidating federal laws (Jackson) case demonstrates limits of Wickard v. Filburn – “substantially affecting commerce” Facts: Filburn sues Wickard to prevent enforcement of penalty imposed on him for exceeding quota of wheat for his farm, was only going to be used for personal use, claims Market Agricultural Adjustment Act exceeds commerce power Holding: Act does not exceed Congressional even if activity is local and not considered commerce, Congress may still regulate if it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, regardless of whether it is direct or indirect appellee’s own contribution may seem trivial but his Aggregation test: contribution taken with others similarly situated, is not trivial Test for Commerce Clause 1937: Congress could exercise control over all after phases of business, a federal law would be upheld so long as it was within the scope of Congress’s power, and the commerce clause was interpreted so broadly that seemingly any law would meet this requirement Congress could regulate any activity if there was on a substantial effect interstate commerce Regulatory Laws: Court’s broad definition of the commerce clause power facilitated this expansion, court held that Congress can set the terms for items shipped in interstate commerce and can regulate purely intrastate activities, including all aspects of business, if there is a rationale basis for believing there is an interstate effect (Title II) Civil Rights Act 1964 Prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, color religion or national origin. Congress and admin focused on commerce power to cover any establishment that: Offers to serve interstate commerce A substantial amount of food it serves has moved in commerce Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States: Facts: Atlanta wanted to uphold its practice of refusing rooms to AA Court upheld law under the Commerce Clause, discrimination in hotels impedes travel Holding: Congress may regulate the ability of commercial institutions to deny service on the basis of race under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Determinative test: whether the activity sought to be regulated is commerce which concerns more states than one and has real and substantial relation to the national interest Katzenback v. McClung: court upheld application of the act to a small business, Ollie’s BBQ Emphasized interstate connections of the restaurant, direct evidence of interstate economic effect not necessary
Congress may control production by regulating shipments in interstate commerce “Plenary power” conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause Motive of regulation are matters for legislative judgment, Court said a law is constitutional so long as it is within the scope of Congress’s power’ tenth amendment would not be used by the judiciary as a basis for invalidating federal laws Wickard v. Filburn (Jackson) – case demonstrates limits of “substantially affecting commerce” Facts: Filburn sues Wickard to prevent enforcement of penalty imposed on him for exceeding quota of wheat for his farm, was only going to be used for personal use, claims Market Agricultural Adjustment Act exceeds commerce power Holding: Act does not exceed Congressional even if activity is local and not considered commerce, Congress may still regulate if it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, regardless of whether it is direct or indirect Aggregation test: appellee’s own contribution may seem trivial but his contribution taken with others similarly situated, is not trivial Test for Commerce Clause after 1937: Congress could exercise control over all phases of business, a federal law would be upheld so long as it was within the scope of Congress’s power, and the commerce clause was interpreted so broadly that seemingly any law would meet this requirement Congress could regulate any activity if there was a substantial effect on interstate commerce Regulatory Laws: Court’s broad definition of the commerce clause power facilitated this expansion, court held that Congress can set the terms for items shipped in interstate commerce and can regulate purely intrastate activities, including all aspects of business, if there is a rationale basis for believing there is an interstate effect Civil Rights Act 1964 (Title II) Prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, color religion or national origin. Congress and admin focused on commerce power to cover any establishment that: Offers to serve interstate commerce A substantial amount of food it serves has moved in commerce Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States: Facts: Atlanta wanted to uphold its practice of refusing rooms to AA Court upheld law under the Commerce Clause, discrimination in hotels impedes travel Holding: Congress may regulate the ability of commercial institutions to deny service on the basis of race under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Determinative test: whether the activity sought to be regulated is commerce which concerns more states than one and has real and substantial relation to the national interest Katzenback v. McClung: court upheld application of the act to a small business, Ollie’s BBQ Emphasized interstate connections of the restaurant, direct evidence of interstate economic effect not necessary
chandlerconlawspring2014.docx