Also known as: substantially affects commerce · substantial effect on commerce · substantially affect interstate commerce · Commerce Clause · affecting commerce
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A category of intrastate activity that Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause when the activity, viewed in the aggregate, exerts a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Congress enacts a statute prohibiting interstate shipment of live baitfish from states lacking approved inspection programs. A Maine supplier challenges the federal ban. The court upholds the statute because the aggregate movement of invasive species substantially affects interstate commerce in fisheries and tourism.
Congress passes legislation allowing states to impose higher fees on out-of-state hazardous waste only after finding substantial aggregate effects on interstate waste markets. An out-of-state generator sues. The court sustains the federal authorization because the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce.
Congress authorizes local flow-control ordinances for solid waste after determining that unregulated interstate waste traffic substantially affects national markets. Private haulers challenge a county rule. The court upholds the federal statute and local ordinance under the substantial-effects category.
Congress extends FLSA overtime rules to state employees after finding that labor conditions in the aggregate substantially affect interstate commerce. A state highway department objects. The court rejects the challenge, confirming that the substantial-effects rationale supports the federal regulation.
Congress enacts a statute permitting state nuclear-waste surcharges after determining that interstate waste disposal substantially affects commerce. A generator contests the fees. The court upholds the federal authorization because the targeted activity substantially affects interstate commerce.
A farmer grows wheat solely for on-farm consumption and exceeds his federal acreage allotment. Federal agents seize the excess crop under a national production-control program. The court sustains the regulation because the aggregate effect of such local production substantially affects interstate wheat markets and prices.
Filburn owns and operates a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, where he maintains a herd of dairy cattle, sells milk, raises poultry, and sells poultry and eggs. For many years he has also raised a small acreage of winter wheat sown in the fall and harvested the following July, selling a portion of the crop, feeding part to poultry and livestock on the farm, using some to make flour for home consumption, and keeping the rest for the following seeding. In July 1940 the Secretary of Agriculture established for Filburn's 1941 crop a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels per acre. Filburn received notice of the allotment before planting his 1941 crop and again before harvest. He nevertheless sowed 23 acres and harvested 239 bushels from the 11.9 excess acres. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended on May 26, 1941, treated the excess as farm marketing excess subject to a penalty of 49 cents per bushel, totaling $117.11. Filburn did not pay the penalty, store the excess wheat under the Secretary's regulations, or deliver it to the Secretary. The County Agricultural Conservation Committee therefore refused him a marketing card required to protect buyers from liability for the penalty and its lien. On May 19, 1941, the Secretary delivered a radio address to wheat farmers advocating approval of the quotas. A referendum of wheat growers was held on May 31, 1941, and 81 percent of those voting favored the marketing quota. Filburn filed a complaint in federal district court against the Secretary of Agriculture, members of the County Agricultural Conservation Committee for Montgomery County, Ohio, and a member of the State Agricultural Conservation Committee for Ohio, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the penalty against him and a declaratory judgment that the quota provisions were unconstitutional. The district court in Filburn v. Helke, 43 F. Supp. 1017, held that the Secretary's speech invalidated the referendum, that the May 26, 1941 amendment increasing the penalty and subjecting the entire crop to a lien was retroactive and violated the Fifth Amendment, and alternatively that the equities favored Filburn. The court permanently enjoined collection of any penalty exceeding 15 cents per bushel. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted review.
View caseCongress must demonstrate that the regulated activity, taken in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Courts defer to reasonable congressional judgments about those effects even without formal findings.
No. The category reaches noncommercial intrastate conduct when its aggregate impact on interstate commerce is substantial, as illustrated by home consumption of wheat in Wickard.
The channels and instrumentalities categories allow regulation of the highways, airways, and things moving in commerce regardless of substantial effect. The substantially affecting category instead focuses on the economic impact of the targeted activity itself.