Con Law Exam #2 Study GuideChapter II: Federalism at WorkGibbons v. Ogden (1824) – Ogden got monopoly over maritime transportation between New York and NJ – Gibbons does it anyways, says its ok based on federal statute – Ogden takes gibbons to courtrule of law: The Commerce Clause gives Congress plenary power to regulate interstate commerce including navigation within a state when it affects anotherplenary power – complete authority of Court to hear and determine cases having to do with specific topics or particular partiesNLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. (1937) – National Labor Relations Act establishesthe right of employees to organize and bargain collectively – Jones & Laughlin charged bc of unfair labor practice when they fire employees for organizing unionsquestion: can Congress regulate working conditions?Rule of law: legislation legal because strikes affect interstate commerce because they indirectly affect interstate commerce when production stopsimportance: - Congress’ power to regulate indirect activities under commerce clause expandedextension of NLRB - U.S. v. Darby (1941) – Darby violates Fair Standard Acts of 1938 that prohibits shipment of goods interstate by goods manufactured at places that don’t meet certain standards- question: can Congress regulate intrastate manufacturing?- rule of law: Congress can regulate production because it’s motive and consequence clearly falls under commerce clause bc of the activity’s impact on interstate shipment- plenary power given to Congress in Commerce ClauseU.S. v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) – Congress sets price of milk – Illinois company doesn’t sell out of state so says this can’t be regulatedruling: national government can regulate based on fact that the milk sold will be in direct competition with out of state milkWickard v. Filburn (1942) – Wickard a wheat farmer who gets fined for violating an act that establishes a quota – wickard uses small amount of wheat for personal use question: can Congress regulate shit not intended for commerce but rather for personal consumption?Rule of law: Congress can regulate even when production is for consumption as long as it has substantial effect on the economy – in this case it does bc of (most important result of case) aggregation principle or cumulative effect principle (if more people were to do the activity it would have a substantial effect on the economy) where as if all farmers used their wheat for personal consumption it would have significant effect on flow of wheat in the countryGonzales v. Raich (2010) – growth of weed in home for medical purposes when that’s legal in the state – rational ban on growth of marijuana because it prevents or limits access to use of marijuana for other reasons other than medicalin wickard it was rational bc it was rationally connected with the stability of prices in the interstate market, and in this case it’s rational bc it’s connected with the overall goal of ending interstate market of weedHeart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964) – title II of 1964 Civil Rights Act says public accommodation can’t be discriminatory based on race – Heart of Atlanta doesn’t allow colored peoples to rent a room – motel questions legality of legislation – 75% of customers are from out of state – conveniently located right by interstate highwayquestion: can congress regulate racial discrimination with commerce clause?Rule of law: Congress can regulate racial discrimination of “local activity” as commerce clause when it has significant effect on interstate travellers ( a hotel hosts travellers passing through a state or a restaurant feeds travellers of the same nature [in Katzenbach v. McClung 1963]) U.S. v. Lopez (1995) – Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 makes it federal offense to have gun in a school zoneQuestion: can the federal government create such a law?holding: the Act doesn’t regulate commercial activity at all – the possession of a weapon in school zone has no “substantial effect” on the economyChief Justice Rehnquist gives majority opinion – states 3 broad categories of commerce that Congress can regulate:Channels of interstate commerceProtection of instruments, persons, or things of interstate commerce even if violation is intrastate activityActivities that have a substantial affect on interstate commerce – not just individual activity in question but rather if policy under question would be implemented by many more (aggregate principle)U.S. v. Morrison (2000) – Violence Against Women Act allows victim of gender-motivated violence to sue perpetrator in federal court – says it affects interstate commercebecause violence against women can deter interstate employment, travelling and businessinteractions based on fearHolding: provision of Act unconstitutional because economic effects of crimes against women were indirect so can’t be regulated by CongressNational Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) – challenge to the individual mandate clause of the ACA requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty – also questions const. of the expansion of Medicaid provisionholding: the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the powers to regulate under the commerce clause, but is const. within Congressional powers under taxing clauseImportance: no power under commerce clause when gov. legislation “compels” people to get involved in economic activity that they aren’t already involved in (forced to buy insurance when they aren’t already taking part in that commerce) – BUT Congress does have power to regulate using necessary and proper clause because the mandate isn’t against the const. and it can be said to be substantially important to the promotion of a valid governmental objective3 Limits of Commerce Clause Usage:Substantial effect requirementNon-economic activityForced entry to marketDormant Commerce Clause –Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, therefore states are restricted from passing legislation that improperly burdens interstate commerceDirect discrimination of out of state enterprises for protection of local businesses (Hunt v. Washington 1977 – NC ban on apple sales not labeled USDA grade – USDA grade label not required - Washington, where many apples come from, hadits own regulations – needless discrimination against Washington producers for the advantage of in-state producers) –