Commerce Clause and New Deal Era Analysis

The Supreme Court's authority to regulate economic activities within states under the Constitution.

A period before 1937 when the Supreme Court strictly limited the federal government's power to regulate commerce within states. Many New Deal programs were deemed unconstitutional.

A period after 1937 when the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, upholding the constitutionality of more New Deal programs.

A case where the Supreme Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act, arguing that labor relations in a large steel corporation directly impacted interstate commerce and therefore fell under Congress's regulatory authority.

The turning point in the Supreme Court's approach to New Deal legislation, particularly after Justice Owen Roberts changed his stance on the constitutionality of such laws.

The ruling in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) established that even local activities, such as growing wheat for personal consumption, can be regulated if they have a substantial cumulative impact on interstate commerce.

A case that upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act, arguing that even local activities with a substantial effect on interstate commerce could be regulated.

Activities that are local in nature but have a substantial impact on interstate commerce due to collective effects.

The Court's increased deference to Congress's findings regarding the effects of specific activities on interstate commerce. This allows Congress to regulate broader areas based on its expertise.

The Court's recognition that "commerce" includes activities beyond the simple movement of goods across state lines. It now encompasses activities that can impact the economic conditions of multiple states.

The Court's shift in its interpretation of the Commerce Clause, granting expanded power to the federal government to regulate commerce.

The Supreme Court's increased willingness to uphold federal laws based on the Commerce Clause, particularly during the New Deal era.

The Court's scrutiny and judgment of federal laws, particularly those based on the Commerce Clause, to ensure they align with the Constitution.

The Court began to give more weight to Congress's findings about a law's effect on interstate commerce. This was seen in cases like NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., where the Court backed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because of Congress's observations about labor relations affecting interstate trade. This let Congress create more rules that could be justified by their potential impact on interstate commerce.

The Court broadened the meaning of "commerce" to include not just moving goods between states but also activities that could affect the economy of multiple states. This wider interpretation was crucial for the New Deal's expansion of federal rules. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., the Court ruled that labor disputes in a big corporation could have a big impact on interstate commerce, making federal labor relation rules valid.

This case involved the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which aimed to regulate fair competition in the poultry industry. The Court ruled that the NIRA was unconstitutional because it regulated local businesses that did not substantially affect interstate commerce.