Also known as: activity affecting interstate commerce · activities that affect interstate commerce · affecting interstate commerce · Commerce Clause · affectation doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Activities that have a substantial effect on the movement of goods, services, or persons across state lines, thereby coming within Congress's regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause.
Artemis Logistics ships live baitfish from out of state into a local market. State officials block the shipments to protect native fish populations. The company sues, arguing the ban targets an activity with clear interstate dimensions and lacks nondiscriminatory alternatives.
Alliance Holdings hauls hazardous waste generated in another state to a local landfill. The state charges the company a higher disposal fee than it charges in-state generators. The firm claims the surcharge discriminates against an interstate waste-handling activity without justification.
Atlas Ventures collects solid waste from businesses across state lines. A county rule requires all waste to go to a publicly owned transfer station. The company challenges the mandate as favoring a government facility that performs a traditional public function.
Andre Antoine works for a state agency that maintains interstate highways. Federal wage and hour standards now cover his position. The state argues the rules intrude on traditional governmental functions, but the statute treats public and private employers alike.
Abigail Alvarez operates a disposal site that accepts nuclear waste from several states. Congress has authorized the state to impose an extra fee on out-of-state shipments. The operator contests the fee as unauthorized discrimination against interstate activity.
Alan Ackerman carries a handgun in his vehicle parked at a manufacturing plant. A federal statute prohibits the firearm on the premises. The employee argues the possession is purely local and noncommercial, lacking any substantial link to interstate movement of goods.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseCongress must demonstrate that the activity, taken in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Non-economic, intrastate conduct such as simple possession does not qualify for aggregation.
Supporting sources
States participate in the federal political process through their senators and representatives. Courts therefore defer to Congress when it regulates states and private parties under the same commerce statute.
Supporting sources
Congress may expressly permit states to impose origin-based surcharges or restrictions on particular items such as nuclear waste. Authorized discrimination does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
Supporting sources
No. When the ordinance directs waste to a government-owned facility performing a traditional public function, courts apply more lenient review because the preference is presumed to serve legitimate public objectives rather than economic protectionism.
Supporting sources
…and foreign commerce. There is no reason to believe that Chief Justice Marshall was asserting that Congress could regulate all activities that affect interstate commerce. See ibid. The second source of confusion stems from the Court's praise for the Constitution's division of power between the States and the Federal Government: "The genius and…