Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 733

529US3

Unit: $U54

[10-04-01 09:35:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

658

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

Breyer, J., dissenting

interstate effects of wheat grown for home consumption);
Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra, at 258 (“ ‘[I]f it is interstate
commerce that feels the pinch, it does not matter how local
the operation which applies the squeeze’ ” (quoting United
States v. Women’s Sportswear Mfrs. Assn., 336 U. S. 460, 464
(1949))). Nothing in the Constitution’s language, or that of
earlier cases prior to Lopez, explains why the Court should
ignore one highly relevant characteristic of an interstate-
commerce-affecting cause (how “local” it is), while placing
critical constitutional weight upon a different, less obviously
relevant, feature (how “economic” it is).

Most importantly, the Court’s complex rules seem unlikely
to help secure the very object that they seek, namely, the
protection of “areas of traditional state regulation” from
federal intrusion. Ante, at 615. The Court’s rules, even
if broadly interpreted, are underinclusive. The local pick-
pocket is no less a traditional subject of state regulation
than is the local gender-motivated assault. Regardless,
the Court reafﬁrms, as it should, Congress’ well-established
and frequently exercised power to enact laws that satisfy
a commerce-related jurisdictional prerequisite—for example,
that some item relevant to the federally regulated activity
has at some time crossed a state line. Ante, at 609, 611–612,
613, and n. 5; Lopez, supra, at 558; Heart of Atlanta Motel,
supra, at 256 (“ ‘[T]he authority of Congress to keep the
channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and inju-
rious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer
open to question’ ” (quoting Caminetti v. United States,
242 U. S. 470, 491 (1917))); see also United States v. Bass,
404 U. S. 336, 347–350 (1971) (saving ambiguous felon-in-
possession statute by requiring gun to have crossed state
line); Scarborough v. United States, 431 U. S. 563, 575 (1977)
(interpreting same statute to require only that gun passed
“in interstate commerce” “at some time,” without question-
ing constitutionality); cf., e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 2261(a)(1) (making
it a federal crime for a person to cross state lines to commit