Congressional Power: Overturning State Laws In Commerce

The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate commerce and restrict states from impairing interstate commerce. This clause has been interpreted as implicitly forbidding the enforcement of certain state economic regulations, even when Congress has not legislated on the subject. This interpretation creates a sphere of exclusive federal authority where state regulations are unenforceable. The Supreme Court has heard approximately 1,400 Commerce Clause cases before 1900, most of which stemmed from state legislation. Congress can also achieve its goals without amending the Constitution by enacting statutes that extend constitutional principles through its enumerated powers, such as the ability to regulate commerce and attach conditions to money given to states.

The Commerce Clause

> [The Congress shall have Power...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;...

During the Marshall Court era (1801-1835), interpretation of the Commerce Clause gave Congress jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce, as well as activities that had not traditionally been regarded as commerce. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce also included the power to regulate interstate navigation:

> Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse... [A] power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted, as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce'... [T]he power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several states. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines.

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court increasingly heard cases on Congress's power to regulate commerce, and its interstate Commerce Clause jurisprudence evolved significantly during the twentieth century. The use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited following the end of the Lochner era in 1937.

Congress's power to regulate commerce

The Commerce Clause, or Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes". This clause has been a source of controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states, with some arguing that Congress has overstepped its mandate.

The interpretation of the sixteen words of the Commerce Clause has been pivotal in defining the balance of power between the federal government and the states, as well as between the two elected branches of the federal government and the Judiciary. The Commerce Clause has been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and a restriction on the regulatory authority of the states.

The Supreme Court's early interpretations of the Commerce Clause focused on the meaning of "commerce" while paying less attention to the meaning of "regulate". The Court initially viewed the Commerce Clause as limiting state power rather than as a source of federal power. However, starting in 1937, the Court began to recognise broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, the Court held that an activity was considered commerce if it had a "substantial economic effect" on interstate commerce or if the "cumulative effect" of one act could impact such commerce.

In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme 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. Despite this, the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) continued to reflect a liberal construction, as it upheld federal regulation of intrastate marijuana production.

Congress has used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, impacting the lives of American citizens. For example, in the context of abortion rights, Congress could pass a statute guaranteeing the right to abortion to the extent that medical care involves commercial activities that Congress can permissibly regulate. However, this could be controversial as it may infringe on states' rights under the 10th Amendment.

State laws and their conflict with federal legislation

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce and restrict states from impairing interstate commerce. This clause has been interpreted as limiting state power rather than as a source of federal power. This means that federal laws made under the Commerce Clause prevail over conflicting state laws.

The "dormant" commerce clause allows courts to measure state legislation against Commerce Clause values even when Congress is not actively exercising its power. This means that the dormant commerce clause creates a sphere of exclusive federal authority where state regulations are unenforceable. The Supreme Court has interpreted this as forbidding the enforcement of certain state economic regulations even when Congress has not legislated on the subject.

The first case to strike down a state law on Commerce Clause grounds was the State Freight Tax Case. The Court held that a tax on freight transported from state to state was a regulation of commerce among the states and required uniform regulation.

In another case, the Court upheld a state law requiring ships to engage a local pilot when entering or leaving the port of Philadelphia. The Court enunciated a doctrine of partial federal exclusivity, with Justice Curtis' opinion distinguishing between subjects of commerce that demand a single uniform rule and those that demand diversity to meet local necessities.

The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but states retain substantial authority to regulate where federal law is silent. State laws with significant effects on out-of-state economic activity are unlikely to offend federal authority unless they are purposefully discriminatory instruments of "economic protectionism".

Congress can also achieve certain goals by enacting statutes that extend constitutional principles through its enumerated powers, such as the power to regulate commerce and attach conditions to funding given to states. For example, Congress can pass a statute that guarantees the right to abortion to the extent that medical care involves commercial activities that it can regulate. However, this may infringe on states' rights under the 10th Amendment, which states that the federal government cannot tell states what to do with their own laws.

The federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce

The Commerce Clause, outlined in the US Constitution, gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes. This clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as granting Congress broad powers to regulate interstate commerce and restrict states from impairing it.

The interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been a source of ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. While the Constitution does not explicitly define "commerce," courts have generally interpreted the clause broadly. Early Supreme Court cases, such as those before 1900, viewed the clause as limiting state power rather than a source of federal power. These cases often stemmed from state legislation, and the Court focused on interpreting the meaning of "commerce" rather than "regulate."

However, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court demonstrated a newfound willingness to interpret the Commerce Clause more broadly. Decisions such as NLRB v. Jones, United States v. Darby, and Wickard v. Filburn reflected the Court's broad interpretation of the clause. This trend continued until 1995, when the Court attempted to curtail Congress's power under the clause by adopting a more conservative interpretation in United States v. Lopez. In this case, the Court held that Congress could only regulate commercial activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, declining to further expand the scope of the Commerce Clause.

Despite this, the Court's interpretation in Lopez did not signal a complete return to the Lochner era's narrow interpretation of the clause. For instance, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court upheld federal regulation of intrastate marijuana production, demonstrating a continued broad interpretation of the clause in certain contexts.

Congress has used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over state activities, such as in the case of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. This act prohibits certain abortion procedures and was passed using the Commerce Clause power. However, it is important to note that Congress's use of this power can be controversial, as it may infringe on states' rights under the 10th Amendment.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution

The United States Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause, establishes that federal law is the supreme law of the land, even over state laws, in certain circumstances. The power to interpret the Constitution is primarily vested in the Supreme Court, which has played a pivotal role in shaping the country's legal landscape. Over time, the Court has developed a set of principles and doctrines that guide its interpretation of the Constitution, particularly in matters pertaining to the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

One key principle is the doctrine of federalism, which recognizes the division of power between the national government and the states. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution's Commerce Clause as granting Congress broad powers to regulate interstate commerce. This includes the ability to enact laws that may supersede or invalidate state laws that interfere with the regulation of commerce. However, the Court has also recognized limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, emphasizing that it must be interpreted in a way that maintains a balance between federal and state authority.

In determining whether a federal law overturns or invalidates a state law, the Court considers the intent of Congress. If Congress explicitly states its intention to supersede state law, the Court will generally uphold that decision. However, if Congress has not clearly expressed its intent, the Court will carefully examine the federal law and assess whether it conflicts with state law. If a conflict exists, the Court may rule that the federal law takes precedence, effectively overturning the state law.

The Court has also developed the doctrine of preemption, which provides that federal law supersedes state law when they conflict. "Conflict preemption" occurs when it is impossible to comply with both federal and state laws, or when state law obstructs the execution of Congress's objectives under the Commerce Clause. Additionally, "field preemption" comes into play when Congress indicates an intention to occupy an entire field of regulation, leaving no room for state law to operate.

Frequently asked questions