Interstate Commerce: Who Holds The Constitutional Power?

The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This clause has been the subject of much debate and interpretation over the years, with the Supreme Court playing a significant role in shaping its scope and impact. The Court has generally taken a broad interpretation of the clause, allowing the federal government to address national challenges and regulate complex economic and social issues. However, there have also been efforts to curtail congressional power under the Commerce Clause, such as in United States v. Lopez, where the Court attempted to return to a more conservative interpretation. The Commerce Clause continues to be a contentious issue, with ongoing debates between federal jurisdiction and states' rights.

Explore related products

The Tenth Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause

$9.99 $9.99

Gibbons v. Ogden: John Marshall, Steamboats, and Interstate Commerce (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$19.99 $29.99

The Glannon Guide to Constitutional Law: Learning Constitutional Law through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis

$71.95 $71.95

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$174.91

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$245.32 $359

Constitutional and political objections to granting the power of rate-making to the Interstate commerce commission

$9.99

The Commerce Clause

The interpretation of the Commerce Clause has evolved over time, with courts generally adopting a broad interpretation. In 1824, the Supreme Court ruled in Gibbons v. Ogden that intrastate activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause, provided it is part of a larger interstate commercial scheme. This was further expanded in 1905 in Swift and Company v. United States, where the Court held that Congress could regulate local commerce as long as it was part of a continuous "current" of commerce involving the interstate movement of goods and services.

Federal vs state jurisdiction

The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among several states, and with Indian tribes. The clause has been used by Congress to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to a significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been a defining aspect of constitutional law, shaping the boundaries of federal and state power.

The Commerce Clause emerged as a response to the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. Before 1887, Congress applied the Commerce Clause only on a limited basis, usually to remove barriers that states imposed on interstate trade. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 showed that Congress could apply the Commerce Clause more expansively to national issues involving commerce across state lines. This marked a significant turning point in federal policy, as the national economy became more integrated, making almost all commerce interstate and international.

The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the Commerce Clause. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court affirmed federal supremacy in regulating interstate commerce, setting a precedent for a broad interpretation of the clause. In United States v. Darby (1941), the Court upheld the federal government's authority to regulate labor standards across states, further solidifying Congress's broad power under the Commerce Clause.

However, in United States v. Lopez, the Court declined to expand the Commerce Clause, holding that Congress's power is limited to regulating the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and actions that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court's New Federalism doctrine, exemplified in Lopez and Morrison, aimed to rein in congressional powers and strengthen the powers of individual states. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court upheld a federal law regarding marijuana, even when it was grown and consumed within a single state, as Congress may regulate intrastate economic goods as part of legislation designed to regulate interstate commerce.

The Commerce Clause has been a critical tool for the federal government to address national challenges and regulate a complex economy. It has facilitated interstate commerce and prevented economic sabotage by conflicting state interests. However, the tension between federal jurisdiction and states' rights remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates surrounding the separation of powers between federal and state governments.

The Interstate Commerce Act

The Act was passed in response to public demand to regulate the railroad industry, which was the first industry to become subject to federal regulation. The railroads were the first "big business" in the United States, growing rapidly after the Civil War. Farmers, ranchers, and small businesses relied on trains to get their goods to market but felt that the preferential treatment given to large shippers in the form of lower rates was unfair. The Act prohibited rebates, drawbacks, pooling, and rate discrimination by monopolies, and mandated "reasonable and just" rates. It also forbade long- and short-haul clauses unless an exemption was granted.

While the Act was not very effective in practice, its most successful provisions were the requirement that railroads submit annual reports to the ICC and the ban on special rates arranged among themselves. Over time, the courts narrowed the ICC's authority, and in 1995, Congress abolished the commission, transferring its remaining functions to the Surface Transportation Board.

Explore related products

Regulation of Foreign Commerce by the Interstate Commerce Commission (Classic Reprint)

$29.57

A Citizen's Guide to the Constitution and the Supreme Court (Citizen Guides to Politics and Public Affairs)

$190 $49.99

The Constitution and Economic Regulation: Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment

$50.86 $62.99

Regulation of Commerce Under the Federal Constitution (Studies in Constitutional Law)

$20.95

The Commerce Clause

$25.25 $25.25

To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State

$21.9 $29.99

Supreme Court interpretations

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause broadly, holding that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This interpretation has evolved over time to cover various aspects of economic activity, including non-economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court ruled that intrastate activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it was part of a larger interstate commercial scheme. This case established the Court's broad interpretation of the clause, which has been a defining aspect of constitutional law and has shaped the boundaries between federal and state power.

In Swift and Company v. United States (1905), the Court affirmed that Congress could regulate local commerce as long as it was part of a continuous "current" of commerce involving the interstate movement of goods and services. This decision further expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause, giving Congress more power to regulate local commerce.

The Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause has not always been consistent, and there have been periods of broader and narrower interpretations. For example, in United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court attempted to curtail Congress's broad legislative mandate under the Commerce Clause by adopting a more conservative interpretation. The Court held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and actions that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Another significant case is Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where the Court ruled that Congress could criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis, even if it was for medicinal purposes and did not enter interstate commerce. This case reaffirmed Congress's power to regulate intrastate activities that could substantially affect interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court's interpretations of the Commerce Clause have had a significant impact on the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The clause has become a powerful legislative tool for addressing national problems and has been central to numerous constitutional debates.

The impact on individual liberties

The US Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states". This power, known as the Commerce Clause, has been interpreted broadly by courts throughout much of US history, allowing Congress to address national problems and regulate intrastate commerce as long as it is part of a larger interstate commercial scheme.

The impact of this interpretation on individual liberties has been significant. On the one hand, the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been used to protect civil liberties and prevent discrimination. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent businesses from discriminating against Black customers, was supported by several Supreme Court opinions based on the Commerce Clause. The Court ruled that Congress could regulate businesses that served mostly interstate commerce. This interpretation helped to ensure equal protection and racial equality by preventing businesses from discriminating against individuals based on race.

On the other hand, some argue that limiting the commerce power, as the Rehnquist Court did, weakens individual liberties. For example, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court upheld a federal law regarding marijuana, even though the marijuana in question had never entered interstate commerce. This decision set a precedent for the federal government to regulate intrastate economic goods as part of a complete scheme to regulate interstate commerce.

The Commerce Clause has also been used to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, such as carrying a handgun to school in violation of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In this case, the Supreme Court rejected the government's argument, holding that Congress only has the power to regulate channels of commerce, instrumentalities of commerce, and actions that substantially affect interstate commerce. This decision maintained the distinction between national and local powers, protecting individual liberties by limiting the federal government's reach into local matters.

Additionally, the Commerce Clause has been used to prevent protectionist state policies that favour state citizens or businesses at the expense of non-citizens conducting business within that state. For example, in West Lynn Creamery Inc. v. Healy, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts state tax on milk products because it impeded interstate commercial activity by discriminating against non-Massachusetts citizens and businesses. This decision protected the liberties of out-of-state citizens and businesses by ensuring they were not unfairly burdened by discriminatory state taxes.

In conclusion, the interpretation and application of the Commerce Clause have had a significant impact on individual liberties in the United States. While a broad interpretation has been used to protect civil liberties and prevent discrimination, there are also concerns that an overly broad interpretation can weaken individual liberties by expanding federal power into areas traditionally considered local matters. The balance between protecting individual liberties and ensuring effective regulation of interstate commerce remains a ongoing debate in US constitutional law.

Frequently asked questions