The Best of Reason: Congress 'Can Regulate Virtually Anything'
How legislators learned to stop worrying about the constitutionality of federal drug and gun laws by abusing the Commerce Clause.
How legislators learned to stop worrying about the constitutionality of federal drug and gun laws by abusing the Commerce Clause.
A federal judge rejected the government’s excuses for banning home production of liquor.
How legislators learned to stop worrying about the constitutionality of federal drug and gun laws by abusing the Commerce Clause
A potentially important post-NFIB enumerated powers challenge.
A modern legal battle challenges the federal ban on distilling alcohol at home—a favorite hobby of the Founding Fathers.
California's stringent AI regulations have the power to stifle innovation nationwide, impacting all of us.
Fourth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
The former and would-be president is keen to avoid alienating voters who reject both kinds of extremism on the issue.
The late Supreme Court justice eloquently defended property rights and state autonomy.
A federal lawsuit argues that it is time to reassess the Commerce Clause rationale for banning intrastate marijuana production and distribution.
The law makes it a felony to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, which covers the sidewalk in front of Gabriel Metcalf's house.
Conservative legal scholar William Hodes argues that federal restrictions on abortion are beyond the scope of Congressional power.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will soon put a permanent stop to the EPA's Clean Water Act land grab.
What power lets Congress exempt harassment allegations from NDAs?
Professor Natelson versus Professor Ablavsky
The Constitution's commerce clause guarantees a domestic free trade zone. A state law that bars a resident from traveling to take advantage of another state’s economic activity would be unconstitutional.
The problem is the Court's ultra-broad interpretation of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But the justices might cut that back.
The senator's avowed devotion to federalism is no match for his political ambitions.
The Republican senator improbably claims his bill is authorized by the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause.
Notwithstanding federal pot prohibition, the appeals court says, the requirement violated the Commerce Clause's implicit prohibition of anti-competitive interstate trade barriers.
National legislation and extraterritorial application of state laws are inconsistent with the local leeway that the Constitution protects.
Questions about the scope of federal power will remain.
Without citing any constitutional authority to dictate state abortion policies, the bill would have overridden regulations that have been upheld or have yet to be tested.
The justice overlooks the long American tradition of pharmacological freedom and the dubious constitutional basis for federal bans.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is probably "yes." But that precedent might not hold, thanks in part to Clarence Thomas.
Do California's rules violate the dormant commerce clause?
The justice's reference to a national "police power" raised some eyebrows.
The argument hinges largely on what makes an emergency standard "necessary."
Absent Roe, current Supreme Court precedent likely gives the federal government considerable power to either restrict or protect abortion rights. But that precedent could potentially be limited in ways advocated by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an unlikely potential savior of abortion rights!
The government argues that the 5th Circuit erred in concluding that the rule "grossly exceeds OSHA's statutory authority."
A unanimous three-judge panel concludes that the decree "grossly exceeds OSHA's statutory authority."
The appeals court said the rule, which was published on Friday, raises "grave statutory and constitutional issues."
Gov. Ron DeSantis' embrace of the law contradicts his avowed commitment to economic freedom.
Without a mandate penalty, the challengers had no standing.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claims to be enforcing a law that prohibits "false or misleading representations."
The Founders could not have possibly imagined the Commerce Clause covering an eviction moratorium.
The national eviction moratorium and Arizona’s business restrictions were based on dubious assertions of authority.
Two district court decisions have upheld the moratorium against various challenges, while one has ruled against it. The legal battle may be just beginning.
A nationwide ban on evictions is well outside the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, ruled U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker on Thursday.
There is little reason to think Barrett would vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which in any case seems legally secure.
Not everything that states do in the name of protecting public health is consistent with the Constitution.
The article explains why the coronavirus crisis does not justify weakening constitutional limits on federal government power.
The president has a history of asserting powers he does not actually have.
are generally constitutional (whether they forbid travel to a particular place, or require travelers to be temporarily quarantined).
Not that I'm suggesting it, but it's an interesting con law hypo.