In U.S. Constitutional law, the “dormant commerce clause” is so called because it forbids individual states from tinkering with even those parts of the national economy that Congress has not regulated—where federal power remains dormant. The name is especially apt because Congress’s commerce power has spent much of the past two centuries snoozing. But the Supreme Court has often stepped in to preserve federal options by striking state efforts to regulate where Congress has yet to act. So even when dormant, the commerce clause has proved formidable. A version of this article appeared in the September 2005 issue of Harvard Business Review.
1. U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, §8, cl. 3. 2. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) 3. Rosenbaum S. A. “broader regulatory scheme”—the constitutionality of health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1881–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 4. Mariner WK, Annas GJ, Glantz LH. Can Congress make you buy broccoli? And why that's a hard question. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:201–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 5. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 6. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §331(k) (1938) 7. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972) 8. Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201–219 (1938) 9. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) 10. Chemerinsky E. Constitutional law: principles and policies. 2nd ed. New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc.; 2002. [Google Scholar] 11. Sullivan KM, Gunther G. Constitutional law. 14th ed. New York: Foundation Press; 2001. [Google Scholar] 12. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) 13. N.L.R.B. v. Jones – Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) 14. Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) 15. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) 16. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) 17. Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789. 18. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558–559 (1995) 19. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561. 20. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 564. 21. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566. 22. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. §13981 et seq. (1994) 23. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 at 628 (2000) (Souter J, dissenting) 24. Strebeigh F. Equal: women reshape American law. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.; 2009. [Google Scholar] 25. Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic and State University, 935 F.Supp. 779 (W.D. Va. 1996) 26. Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic and State University, 169 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999) 27. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 609-610. 28. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618. 29. California Health – Safety Code §11362.5 et seq. (1996) 30. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 31. Eule JN. Laying the dormant Commerce Clause to rest. Yale Law J. 1982;91:425–85. [Google Scholar] 32. Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) 33. Chemical Waste Management v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 (1992) 34. Rosenbaum S, Gruber J. Buying health care, the individual mandate, and the Constitution. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:401–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 35. Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner, 2010 WL 4860299 (W.D. Va. 2010) 36. Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 720 F.Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010) 37. Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 702 F.Supp. 2d 598 (E.D. Va. 2010) 38. Florida ex rel. McCollum v. U.S. Dep't of Health – Human Services, 716 F.Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Fla. 2010) 39. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 at 43 (O'Connor J, dissenting) 40. Claybrook J, Bollier D. The hidden benefits of regulation: disclosing the auto safety payoff. Yale J Regulation. 1985;3:87–131. [Google Scholar] 41. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury (US) Tobacco: federal excise tax increase and related provisions. [cited 2011 Mar 7]. Available from: URL: http://www.ttb.gov/main_pages/schip-summary.shtml.
interstate commerceGeorge Grantham Bain Collection/Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (ggbain 08714) commerce clause, provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) that authorizes Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.” The commerce clause has been the chief doctrinal source of Congress’s regulatory power over the economy of the United States. The commerce clause has traditionally been interpreted both as a grant of positive authority to Congress and as an implied prohibition of state laws and regulations that interfere with or discriminate against interstate commerce. The latter interpretation, of implied prohibition, is the so-called “dormant” commerce clause. In its positive interpretation, the commerce clause serves as the legal foundation of much of the government’s regulatory power. In the matter of regulating commerce with foreign nations, the supremacy as well as the exclusivity of the federal government is generally understood. From time to time, state or local authorities have attempted to deal in foreign policy matters considered exclusively the province of the federal government, but their efforts have invariably been struck down by the courts. Although the states do have some limited powers to tax foreign commerce, it may generally be said that in dealings with foreign states, the federal government is the sole agent of all the people of the United States.
Sea otters are social animals that float on their backs in groups called “rafts” to rest. Sometimes these groups exceed 1,000 otters. See All Good FactsCongress’s use of the commerce clause to assert legislative jurisdiction in matters affecting states and their citizens has often led to disagreement about how the balance of power between the states and the federal government should be determined. The term commerce, which is not defined in the commerce clause (or anywhere else in the Constitution), has been variously interpreted by the courts. Beginning with a series of decisions in 1937, the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s regulatory power broadly under the commerce clause as new methods of interstate transportation and communication have come into use. |