Constitutional Law Final Exam

1) Identify and explain three arguments Justice Marshall makes about the Commerce Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden.

Justice Marshall makes three foundational arguments:

1. Commerce includes more than buying and selling
   Marshall defines “commerce” broadly to include navigation, transportation, and intercourse among states—not merely trade in goods. Because navigation is commerce, Congress may regulate interstate waterways.

2. “Among the several states” means interstate activity with substantial effects across state lines
   Commerce “among” the states does not stop at state borders. If an activity affects more than one state, Congress may regulate it, even if parts occur within a single state.
   

3. Federal power is plenary and supreme within its sphere
   When Congress acts under the Commerce Clause, its power is complete and overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause. New York’s steamboat monopoly therefore had to yield to federal licensing laws.

2) Explain the distinction made by the Court in U.S. v. E.C. Knight that placed limits on Congress’s ability to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause? How was it used to strike down the Federal Child Labor Act of 1916 in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)?

E.C. Knight (1895) distinguishes manufacturing from commerce.
The Court held that manufacturing occurs before commerce and is therefore intrastate, beyond Congress’s Commerce Clause power—even if goods later enter interstate commerce.

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) uses this distinction to strike down the Federal Child Labor Act.
The Court reasoned that child labor regulations controlled production, a local activity, not interstate commerce. Congress could not regulate labor conditions merely because goods might later cross state lines.

3) Explain the Court’s reasoning in Schechter v. U.S. and Carter v. Carter Coal that the business practices the federal government was seeking to regulate were intrastate not interstate commerce.

Schechter v. U.S. (1935)
The Court ruled that poultry slaughtering was a local activity. Once chickens arrived in New York, interstate commerce had ended. The effects on commerce were too indirect to justify federal regulation.

Carter v. Carter Coal (1936)
Coal mining and labor relations were deemed production, not commerce. Any effect on interstate commerce was indirect, so Congress could not regulate wages or labor conditions under the Commerce Clause.

4) How does the Court justify its broader reading of the Commerce Clause in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel? Explain the dissent’s arguments against the majority’s opinion.

Majority reasoning
The Court held Congress may regulate intrastate activities that have a “close and substantial relation” to interstate commerce. Labor unrest at a large steel company could disrupt national markets.

Dissent’s argument
The dissent warned this erased limits on federal power, allowing Congress to regulate nearly all economic activity and undermining federalism.

5) Explain how Roscoe Filburn was in violation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  How did the Court justify its upholding of his fine in Wickard v. Filburn?

Filburn’s violation
Roscoe Filburn exceeded wheat production quotas set by the Agricultural Adjustment Act, even though the excess wheat was for personal consumption.

Court’s justification
The Court reasoned that homegrown wheat, when aggregated across many farmers, substantially affects interstate commerce by reducing demand in the national market. Congress may regulate even noncommercial, local activity if its cumulative effect is substantial.

6) What three arguments does the Court use to place limits upon the federal government’s use of the Commerce Clause to justify regulations in U.S. v. Lopez?  What was the dissent’s response to these limitations?

The Court identifies three limits on Commerce Clause power:

1. Congress may regulate channels of interstate commerce

2. Congress may regulate instrumentalities of interstate commerce

3. Congress may regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce
   

The Gun-Free School Zones Act failed because:

• Gun possession is non-economic

• No jurisdictional hook tied it to interstate commerce

• Congress lacked sufficient findings showing economic effects
  

Dissent’s response:
The dissent argued that education and safety affect the national economy and that Congress deserves deference when determining substantial effects.

7) At the heart of the U.S. v. Morrison decision is the question of whether the Violence Against Women Act constitutes economic activity.  How do the majority and dissenting opinions answer that question?

Majority
Gender-motivated violence is non-economic, and its effects are too attenuated to justify Commerce Clause regulation.

Dissent
The dissent emphasized extensive congressional findings showing economic consequences (healthcare costs, workplace impacts), arguing the activity substantially affects interstate commerce.

8) Explain the arguments the Court uses to justify the relationship of the Civil Rights Act to the Commerce Clause in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964)

The Court upheld the Civil Rights Act by arguing:

1. Racial discrimination by hotels impedes interstate travel

2. The motel served interstate guests and advertised nationally

3. Discrimination imposes economic burdens on interstate commerce
   

Thus, Congress acted within its Commerce Clause authority.

9) In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, why does Chief Justice Roberts argue the Affordable Care Act’s “Individual Mandate” was not justified under the Commerce Clause?  Why does Justice Ginsburg call this a “newly minted constitutional doctrine?”

Roberts’ argument
The individual mandate regulates inactivity (failure to purchase insurance). The Commerce Clause allows regulation of existing economic activity, not creation of it.

Ginsburg’s response
She calls this a “newly minted constitutional doctrine,” arguing Congress has always regulated decisions not to act when they substantially affect commerce.

10) Explain how the Court justifies a broad reading of the Contract Clause in Fletcher v. Peck and Dartmouth v. Woodward.

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
Land grants are contracts; states cannot rescind them even if corruption was involved.

Dartmouth v. Woodward (1819)
Corporate charters are contracts protected from state interference. The Court protects private agreements from legislative alteration.

11) What distinction arises in Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge that leads the Court to rule in favor of Warren Bridge over against the Contract Clause claims of Charles River Bridge?

The Court distinguishes between explicit and implied contract rights.
Because Charles River Bridge’s charter did not explicitly grant exclusivity, no monopoly was protected. Ambiguities are resolved in favor of the public interest, not private privilege.

12) On what bases does the Court argue in Stone v. Mississippi that contracts may be “subject to future legislative and constitutional control”?

The Court holds that:

• States cannot contract away their police powers

• Contracts involving public morals (like lotteries) are subject to future regulation

• Constitutional governance overrides private agreements

13) Discuss at least three arguments the majority raises in Home Building and Loan v. Blaisdell to uphold the constitutionality of the Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Act.

The majority upholds the law because:

1. There was a severe economic emergency
   

2. The law was temporary
   

3. It protected a legitimate public purpose
   

It was reasonable and narrowly tailored

14) Even though the state regulation was upheld in The Slaughterhouse Cases, why was the case an important one for advocates of economic substantive due process?  

Though regulation was upheld, the Court narrowly interpreted the Privileges or Immunities Clause, pushing economic liberty claims into the Due Process Clause—paving the way for economic substantive due process.

15) Explain the Court’s rationale in striking down New York’s regulation of bakery workers in Lochner v. New York.  How does the Court uphold a similar law in Muller v. Oregon without overturning Lochner?

Lochner v. New York (1905)
The Court struck down bakery hour limits as violating freedom of contract, finding no valid health justification.

Muller v. Oregon (1908)
The Court upheld labor limits for women, citing biological differences and social roles—without overturning Lochner.

16) How does the Court argue that the Milk Control Board’s regulations in Nebbia v. New York were not “unreasonable or arbitrary”

The Court held price controls were constitutional because:

• Milk is essential to public welfare

• Regulation need only be reasonable, not perfect

• There is no fundamental right to unrestricted pricing

17) Discuss the arguments raised by the majority in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, striking down the application of the minimum wage law to the Children’s Hospital employees.

The Court struck down minimum wage laws because:

1. They interfered with freedom of contract

2. Women had political equality after the 19th Amendment

3. Wage regulation was not justified by health concerns

18) What does the Court decide in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish?  Explain the legacy of the West Coast Hotel case for economic substantive due process.

The Court upheld minimum wage laws, rejecting Lochner-era formalism.
Legacy:

• Marks the end of strong economic substantive due process

• Allows greater deference to legislative economic regulation

19) Explain three arguments the Court uses in BMW of North America v. Gore (1996) in ruling that the state of Alabama erred by considering BMW’s wrongdoing in other states when upholding the punitive damages award.

The Court held Alabama erred because:

1. States cannot punish conduct lawful in other states

2. Punitive damages must be proportionate

3. Defendants must have fair notice of penalties