1/24/16 1
AMERICAN POLITICS:
Eric J. Williams, PhD.
Dept. Chair of Criminology & Criminal Justice Studies
Sonoma State University
2
COMMERCE:
3
Overview of Today’s Lecture
- Gibbons v. Ogden
- US v. EC Knight Co.
- Stafford v. Wallace
- NLRB v. Jones
- Wickard v. Filburn
- Heart of Atlanta v. US
- Lopez v US
- Gonzales v. Raich
4
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
•  Congress passes law allowing Gibbons to operate ferry, but
NY has given Ogden a monopoly
•  Court declares monopoly unconstitutional, saying Gibbons
has right to operate ferry
5
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Defined commerce as intercourse, meaning transportation is a
part of commerce
6
United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895)
aka the “Sugar Trust Case”
7
United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895)
•  Congress claimed the purchase violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act by creating a monopoly
•  Court refused to state whether or not it was a monopoly,
reasoning Congress did not have power to regulate sugar
refining because it is manufacturing, and therefore it is an
intrastate activity
8
Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
Stream of Commerce
9
Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
•  From 1895 to 1937, the Court uses the narrowest possible
1 •  Congress claimed the purchase violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act by creating a monopoly
•  Court refused to state whether or not it was a monopoly,
reasoning Congress did not have power to regulate sugar
refining because it is manufacturing, and therefore it is an
intrastate activity
8
Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
Stream of Commerce
9
Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
•  From 1895 to 1937, the Court uses the narrowest possible
definition of what is interstate commerceà the product that is
being regulated must literally be in-motion
– Being sold or manufactured is outside definition
10
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937)
•  National Labor Relations Act of 1935
– Congress determined labor-management disputes were
directly related to flow of interstate, therefore could be
regulated by national government
•  National Labor Relations Board charged Jones & Laughlin
Steel Co. with discrimination against employees that were
union members
11
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937)
•  Court held the Act was narrowly constructed so as to regulate
industrial activities which had the potential to restrict
interstate commerce
1/24/16 •  Justices abandoned notion that labor relations had only an
indirect effect on commerce
12
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937)
•  Ability of employees to engage in collective bargaining is “an
essential condition of industrial peace”
– National government therefore justified in penalizing
corporations engaging in interstate commerce which “refuse
to confer and negotiate” with workers
13
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than he was supposed to (to
keep for home use); subsequently fined by the federal
government for doing so
14
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
•  Aggregate Effects Test – broadest possible interpretation of
what is interstate commerce
15
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
Heart of Atlanta sued federal government claiming the Civil
2 corporations engaging in interstate commerce which “refuse
to confer and negotiate” with workers
13
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than he was supposed to (to
keep for home use); subsequently fined by the federal
government for doing so
14
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
•  Aggregate Effects Test – broadest possible interpretation of
what is interstate commerce
15
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
Heart of Atlanta sued federal government claiming the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional
16
United States v. Lopez (1995)
•  Lopez is arrested under the federal Gun Free School Zone
Act
•  Congress claimed the regulation was linked to commerce
through education
17
United States v. Lopez (1995)
•  Lopez is the first time in 58 years the Court determines a law
passed by Congress is unconstitutional under the interstate
commerce clause
– Court felt the issue should be dealt with at the state level,
not the federal level
18
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Angel Raich has Stage 4 Cancer and was given marijuana
grown by a neighbor, as allowed by the California
Compassionate Use Act
19
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
•  Even though Raich’s attorneys show money never
exchanged hands, Court uses the logic of Wickard to uphold
the Controlled Substances Use Act
1/24/16 •  Calif. chooses to ignore the Court’s decision and since 2008,
the Obama administration has refused to enforce the law,
leaving medical marijuana use as a quasi-legal activity
3 •  Calif. chooses to ignore the Court’s decision and since 2008,
the Obama administration has refused to enforce the law,
leaving medical marijuana use as a quasi-legal activity
1/24/16 4