Case BriefCon Law, commerce clauseCarlson 3/7/15Identity of CaseUnited States v. EC Knight Co., 1895Page 191Summary of Facts/Procedural HistoryCongress passes the Sherman Antitrust act, which purports to forbid the creation of monopolies. EC Knight, through a series of mergers, acquires a monopoly over literally the entirety of regulated sugar in the state. US sues to break it up, EC Knight resists the law as unconstitutional.Statement of the IssueIs the power to forbid monopolies within the commerce clause? HoldingNo, although the commerce clause controls the movement of product from one state to another throughthe entirety of its movement, and the instrumentalities of that movement, and the product being moved, it does not extend to the manufacture of that product, which is separate. ReasoningPolicy & limitation of powers, designation of police power to the state. The power to regulate commerce has to end somewhere Manufacture has an effect on interstate commerce, but is not interstate commerce itself. This law could reach companies that never engage in interstate commerce (that’s not true, they are monopolies). Controlling methods of manufacture, even monopolies of manufacture, intrudes on the police power of the state to provide for the personal freedom and property rights of a state and to provide for the citizens general welfare. Manufacturing should be the line in the sand between commerce clause and police power.Evaluation Not a limitation on the commerce clause, more of a refusal to extend the commerce clause
View Full Document