Also known as: substantially affects · substantially affected · substantially affecting · substantial effect · substantial effects test · substantially affects interstate commerce
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
3 senses
An activity that Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause because it bears a substantial relation to interstate commerce. Courts determine whether an intrastate activity substantially affects interstate commerce by examining whether the activity is economic or commercial in nature and whether its effects may be aggregated within a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme.
A standard used to classify a legal rule as substantive rather than procedural for Erie purposes. A rule is substantive when failure to apply it in federal court would produce an outcome materially different from the result that would obtain in state court.
A financial or other interest that could be materially altered by the outcome of a proceeding. A judge must disqualify when the judge, the judge's spouse, or a minor child residing in the household possesses such an interest in a party or the subject matter of the case.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
An activity that Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause because it bears a substantial relation to interstate commerce. Courts determine whether an intrastate activity substantially affects interstate commerce by examining whether the activity is economic or commercial in nature and whether its effects may be aggregated within a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme.
Sasha Stone grows cannabis plants in her backyard under a state medical program. Federal agents seize the plants under a nationwide drug-control statute. The court aggregates the economic effects of similar intrastate cultivation and holds that the activity substantially affects interstate drug markets, allowing federal regulation.
Sylvia Santos carries a handgun onto school grounds for personal protection. Prosecutors charge her under a federal statute banning such possession. The court holds that the non-economic, intrastate activity does not substantially affect interstate commerce and cannot be aggregated, rendering the statute invalid.
Seth Shapiro is sued under a federal civil remedy for gender-motivated assault. The defendant argues the statute exceeds commerce power. The court concludes that the regulated conduct is non-economic and lacks a substantial effect on interstate commerce even when aggregated, so the remedy is invalid.
3 common questions
Congress may regulate when the activity is economic or commercial and its effects can be aggregated within a comprehensive federal scheme. Non-economic activity such as simple gun possession cannot be aggregated even if it affects commerce in some attenuated way.
Supporting sources
The activity was non-economic and intrastate. The Court refused to aggregate its effects because doing so would obliterate the distinction between national and local authority.
A standard used to classify a legal rule as substantive rather than procedural for Erie purposes. A rule is substantive when failure to apply it in federal court would produce an outcome materially different from the result that would obtain in state court.
Steven Silva files a personal-injury suit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction after the state limitations period has expired but within a federal tolling rule. The court applies the state rule because ignoring it would substantially affect the outcome by allowing a claim that state court would dismiss.
1 common questions
A rule is substantive if applying federal law instead of state law would produce a materially different result. Statutes of limitations and tolling rules are classic examples because they determine whether a claim survives.
Supporting sources
A financial or other interest that could be materially altered by the outcome of a proceeding. A judge must disqualify when the judge, the judge's spouse, or a minor child residing in the household possesses such an interest in a party or the subject matter of the case.
Sydney Santos, an independent counsel, investigates a high official. The official claims the appointment substantially affects the balance of executive power. The court examines whether the statutory mechanism deprives the President of substantial control over prosecutorial functions.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View case1 common questions
A judge must recuse when the judge, spouse, or minor child has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome. Even a modest ownership stake may qualify if the proceeding could materially alter its value.
Supporting sources
…commerce. Thus, if § 922(q) is to be sustained, it must be under the third category as a regulation of an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. First, we have upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce.…
…deprive the President of substantial control over the prosecutory functions performed by the independent counsel, and it does substantially affect
…interstate commerce or persons or things in interstate
…or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially
In September 1994 Christy Brzonkala enrolled as a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Within thirty minutes of meeting fellow students Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both members of the varsity football team, Brzonkala alleges that the two men assaulted and repeatedly raped her. Morrison allegedly told Brzonkala after the attack that she had better not have any diseases. He later announced in a dormitory dining room that he liked to get girls drunk and made other vulgar remarks about women. Brzonkala became severely emotionally disturbed and depressed after the incident. She sought assistance from a university psychiatrist who prescribed antidepressant medication. She stopped attending classes and withdrew from the university. In early 1995 she filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under the university's Sexual Assault Policy. Virginia Tech conducted a hearing under its Sexual Assault Policy and a second hearing under its Abusive Conduct Policy. The first found Morrison guilty of sexual assault and suspended him for two semesters. The second hearing again found him guilty but changed the offense description to using abusive language. University officials later set aside the punishment. In December 1995 Brzonkala sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Her complaint alleged that the attack violated 42 U.S.C. §13981, the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which creates a federal cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against persons who commit crimes of violence motivated by gender. She also asserted Title IX claims against the university. The district court dismissed the Title IX claims for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed the §13981 claim on the ground that Congress lacked authority to enact the provision under either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed in part, but the en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact §13981. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the constitutionality of the civil remedy provision.
View caseStella Shapiro, a bakery owner, is prosecuted for violating a state maximum-hours law. The Court holds that the regulation of hours in a local manufacturing business does not substantially affect interstate commerce and therefore lies beyond federal or analogous state power under the prevailing doctrine.
The New York legislature passed a labor law in 1897 that regulated bakeries and confectionery establishments. Section 110 of article 8 of that law stated that no employee shall be required or permitted to work more than sixty hours in any one week or more than ten hours in any one day. This applied unless for the purpose of making a shorter work day on the last day of the week. The plaintiff in error violated the one hundred and tenth section of article 8, chapter 415, of the Laws of 1897, known as the labor law of the State of New York, in that he wrongfully and unlawfully required and permitted an employe working for him to work more than sixty hours in one week. The charge arose from a voluntary contract rather than any use of physical force. The judgments of the County Court of Oneida County, the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals of New York upheld the conviction under the statute, although several judges dissented. The record indicated that the state courts had viewed the law as a measure relating to public health. The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States after argument on February 23 and 24, 1905. The Court rendered its decision on April 17, 1905.
View caseSupporting sources
Yes, when the cultivation is part of a larger economic market and the federal statute is a comprehensive regulatory scheme. Aggregation is permitted because the activity is economic.
Supporting sources