What are channels of interstate commerce?The conduits by which interstate commerce flows, including highways, waterways, railways, air space, telephone lines, the Internet, etc. These channels are subject to federal regulation.
What is the Cooley doctrine?States and federal government have concurrent power to regulate commerce, unless pre-empted expressly by Congress, or implicitly where Congress has established a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme or where the subject requires uniformity of national laws then regulation goes to the state.
What is the doctrine of selected exclusiveness?Defines state authority to regulate commerce: 1) States may regulate purely intrastate commerce; 2) Congress may regulate interstate commerce and thereby preempts contrary state laws; 3) federal authority is exclusive over those elements of commerce that are national in scope or require uniform regulation; and 4) states may regulate interstate commerce that is not national in scope, does not require uniform regulation and has not been regulated by Congress.
What is the dormant (negative) Commerce Clause?A principle that the Constitution's positive grant of power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce carries with it a negative command that the states, without congressional approval, may not discriminate against interstate commerce or unreasonably burden it.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)?This case involved New York trying to grant a monopoly on waterborne trade between New York and New Jersey. Judge Marshal, of the Supreme Court, sternly reminded the state of New York that the Constitution gives Congress alone the control of interstate commerce. Marshal's decision, in 1824, was a major blow on states' rights. Congress has the right to regulate commerce.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)?The Court held that the Child Labor Law of 1916, which prohibited the interstate transportation of products made by children in violation of the Act, was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that Congress was trying to regulate the manufacturing process using the commerce clause and that the employment of children was not directly related to interstate commerce. The Court felt that Congress should not impinge upon the states' police power.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)?The Court held that Congress could use the Commerce Clause powers to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, Congress could outlaw discrimination in certain business open to the public because discrimination in places like hotels along the nation's highways had a substantial and negative effect on interstate commerce.
What is the modern approach to the Commerce Clause?Contemporary interpretations of the commerce power that allow Congress to regulate and protect the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

What did the Supreme Court hold in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)?In this landmark decision, the Court ruled (5-4) that Congress has ability to regulate intrastate matters when they directly burden, threaten, or obstruct interstate commerce. Labor strife in the steel factory would disrupt the ''stream of commerce,'' and would have a direct effect on the flow of interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress has the power to regulate business conditions which may upset interstate commerce.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Northern Securities Company v. United States (1904)?The Court found that a holding company formed solely to eliminate competition between the two railroads was in violation of the Federal Anti-Trust Act because it unreasonably restrained interstate and international commerce. The Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause authority to regulate conspiracies intended to eliminate competition between otherwise competitive railroads.
What are police powers?The general authority of a government to regulate for the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the people, subject to constitutional limitations. The states possess such general police powers, but the federal government is restricted to the powers that have been given to it by the U.S. Constitution.
What did the Supreme Court hold in A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)?The Court held that the delegation of power to set ''codes of fair competition'' to the president by the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 was unconstitutional. Additionally, the Court held the NIRA exceeded federal authority under the Commerce Clause by attempting to regulate an intrastate activity like chicken slaughter with only indirect effects on interstate commerce.

What is selective inclusiveness?Courts deciding what commerce is national and what is local. (Cooley Doctrine)
What is the Shreveport doctrine?The constitutional position, adopted by the Supreme Court in Houston, E. & W. Texas Railway Co. v. United States (1914), that the federal government has the power to regulate intrastate commerce when a failure to regulate would cripple, retard, or destroy interstate commerce.
What is the stream of commerce doctrine?The constitutional position, articulated by the Supreme Court in cases such as Swift & Company v. United States (1905), that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce from the point of its origin to the point of its termination. Interruptions in the course of that interstate movement do not suspend Congress's right to regulate.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Swift v. United States (1904)?The Supreme Court of the United States held that although the price fixing related to stockyard activities which occurred in one state, they were a part of a ''stream of interstate commerce'' and, therefore, could be regulated by the federal government under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

What was the court packing plan?Franklin Roosevelt's 1937 proposal to enlarge the Supreme Court by one justice for every sitting justice who had reached the age of 70. Billed by the president as a way to help the Court manage its workload, the proposal was actually a means for the president to select new justices who would be more inclined to approve his economic reforms. Congress failed to enact the plan.
What were the Four Horsemen?The name given to a group of four conservative justices (Willis Van Devanter, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Pierce Butler) who unfailingly voted to strike down economic regulatory laws enacted as part of President Franklin Roosevelt's attempts to combat the depression.
What was the Great Depression?The nation's most severe economic crisis that began with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 and extended through the 1930s.
What was the New Deal?The term given to the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1937-1945) who promoted extensive federal regulation of business and the economy.

What was the switch in time that saved nine?A reference to Justice Owen Roberts's 1937 change from opposing New Deal programs to supporting them. His modified position resulted in a Court majority that gave constitutional approval to new federal regulatory efforts. This switch, it is said, made Roosevelt's Court packing plan no longer necessary and thus saved the Court as a nine-justice institution.
What did the Supreme Court hold in United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)?The Court held that the federal government could not regulate sugar refineries since they were ''manufacturing operations'' that were not directly related to interstate commerce. States, under the Tenth Amendment, have the reserved power to regulate ''local activities,'' such as manufacturing. The decision allowed the American Sugar Refining Company to dominate the sugar refining industry.
What did the Supreme Court hold in United States v. Lopez (1995)?The Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to prohibit mere possession of a gun near a school, because gun possession by itself is not an economic activity that affects interstate commerce even indirectly.
What did the Supreme Court hold in United States v. Morrison (1999)?Parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Despite congressional findings on the impact of gender motivated violence on interstate commerce, the Court held the Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to create a civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)?The Court held that Illinois had violated the Commerce Clause by placing a direct burden on interstate commerce in the form of setting rates railroads could charge their customers. Under the Commerce Clause only Congress had the power to do so and states could only place indirect burdens on commerce.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Stafford v. Wallace (1922)?The Court held that the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was a valid application of congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Court found that business done in the stockyards, although confined to one state, was an essential part of the stream of interstate commerce and thus subject to national legislation.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Champion v. Ames (1903)?The Court held that trafficking lottery tickets constituted interstate commerce that could be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. Congress may use its power to regulate commerce in order to police social problem, like gambling, and is not required to use commerce regulations for economic ends only.
What did the Supreme Court hold in U.S. v. Darby (1941)?The Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The decision overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart and confirmed the constitutionality of minimum wage laws of general application.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Wickard v. Filburn (1942)?The Court upheld provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which regulated the production of wheat (in order to stabilize prices). The Court decided that Filburn's homegrown wheat reduced the amount of wheat he would buy on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, his excess production affected interstate commerce.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)?The Court held that the Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to extend federal labor regulations to state and local governments. The labor regulations applied to both public and private employers, overruling a previous decision of the Court which had held that regulating activities of state and local governments "in areas of traditional governmental functions" would violate the Tenth Amendment.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)?The Court ruled that under the Commerce Clause, Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where a state approved its use for medicinal purposes.
What did the Supreme Court hold in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)?This landmark decision addressed a number of constitutional arguments. With respect to the claim that Obamacare's "individual mandate" exceeded congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, the Court held (5-4) that requiring individuals to participate in commerce was not a regulation of commerce. (The mandate was allowed by other powers of Congress).

What did the Supreme Court hold in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)?The Court held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause does not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots. Although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifested an intention to leave shipping regulation to the several states until Congress could pass federal regulations.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona (1945)?The Court found that the Arizona's Train Limit Law imposed an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Train Limit Law of 1912 made it illegal for any person or corporation to use the state railroad train that has more than fourteen passenger cars or seventy freight cars.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)?The Court struck down a North Carolina law prohibiting the sale of apples in closed containers marked with any apple grade other than USDA grades. The Court found that North Carolina's law violated the Commerce Clause by needlessly discriminating against Washington state apple producers while working to the advantage of local North Carolina apple growers.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Maine v. Taylor (1986)?The Court held that there was an exception to the "virtually per se invalidity" of discriminatory state legislation under the dormant commerce clause. The Court found that a Maine law prohibiting the importation of out-of-state bait fish was constitutional because Maine authorities couldn't be certain that imported fish would be free of "parasites and non-native species" that might pose environmental harm to local ecology.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Granholm v. Heald (2005)?The Court ruled that laws in New York and Michigan that permitted in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers, but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same, were unconstitutional. These state laws discriminated against out-of-state merchants and violated the dormant Commerce Clause and are not authorized by the Twenty First Amendment.