Jody Blanke, Professor Computer Information Systems and Law Mercer University, Atlanta

Commerce Clause The interpretation by the Supreme Court of the scope of the commerce clause has changed dramatically over the years Early on, the interpretation was fairly broad Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Congress, rather than New York, had the authority to regulate steamboats on the Hudson River

Commerce Clause With the advent of the Industrial Revolution and Big Business, the interpretation narrowed considerably Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) The Court refused to let Congress regulate with “social legislation,” e.g., child labor laws

Commerce Clause New Deal legislation pushed by F.D.R. and passed by the Congress was struck down by the Supreme Court in several 5-4 decisions Schechter Poultry (1935) Congress lacked the power to regulate intrastate poultry processing activity The “Court Packing” Incident Why not have 13 Supreme Court justices?

Commerce Clause Supreme Court finally permits Congress to regulate intrastate activity if it effects interstate commerce (in 5-4 decisions) Jones of Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) Wickard v. Filburn (1942) intrastate activity may have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce

Commerce Clause Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis of interstate activity Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964) motel catered to interstate travelers Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) restaurant served food that was part of interstate commerce

Commerce Clause Supreme Court finally draws an outer boundary to interstate activity U.S. v. Lopez (1995) Gun-Free School Zone Act U.S. v. Morrison (2000) Violence Against Women Act Health Care Bill?