page_title: List of landmark court decisions in the United States
section_title: Federal Congressional powers
hierarchical_section_title: List of landmark court decisions in the United States / Federalism / Federal Congressional powers
caption_attribution_description: English: This is a drawing of the Old Royal Exchange building in New York City, formerly located in Broad Street near the intersection with Water Street.
context_page_description: The following is a partial list of landmark court decisions in the United States. Landmark decisions establish a significant new legal precedent or concept. They can also substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a decision may settle the law in more than one way:
  By distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle. This way it can depart from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis.
  Or, by establishing a test case or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.
  In the United States, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court. Sometimes United States courts of appeals make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so radically different that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.
context_section_description: Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796) A tax on the possession of goods is not a direct tax that the federal government must split up among the states according to their populations. This case featured the first example of judicial review by the Supreme Court.
  Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) The power to regulate interstate navigation is granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
  Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) Congress can prohibit local business practices in order to regulate interstate commerce because those practices, when combined together, form a "stream of commerce" between the states. (Superseded by National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937))
  Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) Treaties made by the federal government are supreme over any concerns brought by the states about such treaties interfering with any states' rights derived from the Tenth Amendment.
  J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) The Separation of Powers can be side-stepped if Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch.
  National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937) The National Labor Relations Act and, by extension, the National Labor Relations Board are constitutional because the Commerce Clause applies to labor relations. Therefore, the NLRB has the right to sanction companies that fire or discriminate against workers for belonging to a union. Also, a local commercial activity that is considered in isolation may still constitute interstate commerce if that activity has a "close and substantial relationship" to interstate commerce.
  Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) The federal government is permitted to impose a tax even if the goal of the tax is not just the collection of revenue.
  United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941) Control over interstate commerce belongs entirely to Congress. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is constitutional under the Commerce Clause because it prevents the states from lowering labor standards to gain commercial advantages.
  Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) The Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows Congress to regulate anything that has a substantial economic effect on commerce, even if that effect is indirect.
  South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds disbursed to the states without violating the Tenth Amendment.
  Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) Congress may ban the use of marijuana even in states that have approved its use for medicinal purposes.
caption: The Old Royal Exchange building in New York City, where the Supreme Court first met in 1790
exif: {}