How has the Supreme Court interpreted the interstate commerce clause?

The interstate commerce clause is found in the US Constitution and reads “Congress shall have Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.” This clause essentially gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between states. The Supreme Court has traditionally interpreted the interstate commerce clause in a very broad way. The Court has ruled that Congress has the power to regulate any commercial activity that affects commerce among the states. This includes activities that happen within just one state, as long as they have an effect on the economy or quality of life of other states. For example, in the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could ban the possession and use of medical marijuana, even though it was legal in California. The Court reasoned that the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce extended to any activity that could affect interstate commerce, including the possession and use of medical marijuana. In addition, the Supreme Court has also interpreted the commerce clause to include the power to regulate any activity that obstructs interstate commerce. This includes, for example, attempts by individual states to create trade barriers with other states. In the 2006 case of United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled that federal regulation of firearms in school zones was valid because it addressed a potential threat to interstate commerce. Overall, the Supreme Court has interpreted the interstate commerce clause in a very broad way and has allowed Congress to regulate any activity that could potentially have an effect on interstate commerce.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the interstate commerce clause?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts