Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 682

529US3

Unit: $U54

[10-04-01 09:35:39] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 598 (2000)

607

Opinion of the Court

the establishment of a divorce, alimony, equitable distribu-
tion of marital property, or child custody decree.”

Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or
more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution.
“The
powers of the legislature are deﬁned and limited; and that
those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitu-
tion is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176
(1803) (Marshall, C. J.). Congress explicitly identiﬁed the
sources of federal authority on which it relied in enacting
§ 13981.
It said that a “Federal civil rights cause of action”
is established “[p]ursuant to the afﬁrmative power of Con-
gress . . . under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution, as well as under section 8 of Article I of
the Constitution.”
42 U. S. C. § 13981(a). We address Con-
gress’ authority to enact this remedy under each of these
constitutional provisions in turn.

II

Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of
Government demands that we invalidate a congressional
enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has
exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v.
Lopez, 514 U. S., at 568, 577–578 (Kennedy, J., concurring);
United States v. Harris, 106 U. S., at 635. With this pre-
sumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the ques-
tion whether § 13981 falls within Congress’ power under
Article I, § 8, of the Constitution. Brzonkala and the United
States rely upon the third clause of the section, which gives
Congress power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Na-
tions, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes.”

As we discussed at length in Lopez, our interpreta-
tion of the Commerce Clause has changed as our Nation
has developed. See 514 U. S., at 552–557; id., at 568–574
(Kennedy, J., concurring); id., at 584, 593–599 (Thomas, J.,
concurring). We need not repeat that detailed review of