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?