Congress may control production by regulating shipments in interstate commerce “Plenary power” conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause Motive of regulation are matters for legislative judgment, Court said a law is constitutional so long as it is within the scope of Congress’s power’ tenth amendment would not be used by the judiciary as a basis for invalidating federal laws Wickard v. Filburn (Jackson) – case demonstrates limits of “substantially affecting commerce” Facts: Filburn sues Wickard to prevent enforcement of penalty imposed on him for exceeding quota of wheat for his farm, was only going to be used for personal use, claims Market Agricultural Adjustment Act exceeds commerce power Holding: Act does not exceed Congressional even if activity is local and not considered commerce, Congress may still regulate if it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, regardless of whether it is direct or indirect Aggregation test: appellee’s own contribution may seem trivial but his contribution taken with others similarly situated, is not trivial Test for Commerce Clause after 1937: Congress could exercise control over all phases of business, a federal law would be upheld so long as it was within the scope of Congress’s power, and the commerce clause was interpreted so broadly that seemingly any law would meet this requirement Congress could regulate any activity if there was a substantial effect on interstate commerce Regulatory Laws: Court’s broad definition of the commerce clause power facilitated this expansion, court held that Congress can set the terms for items shipped in interstate commerce and can regulate purely intrastate activities, including all aspects of business, if there is a rationale basis for believing there is an interstate effect Civil Rights Act 1964 (Title II) Prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, color religion or national origin. Congress and admin focused on commerce power to cover any establishment that: Offers to serve interstate commerce A substantial amount of food it serves has moved in commerce Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States: Facts: Atlanta wanted to uphold its practice of refusing rooms to AA Court upheld law under the Commerce Clause, discrimination in hotels impedes travel Holding: Congress may regulate the ability of commercial institutions to deny service on the basis of race under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Determinative test: whether the activity sought to be regulated is commerce which concerns more states than one and has real and substantial relation to the national interest Katzenback v. McClung: court upheld application of the act to a small business, Ollie’s BBQ Emphasized interstate connections of the restaurant, direct evidence of interstate economic effect not necessary
SDP: way for the court to reign in state power through the constitution Allgeyer v. Louisiana involved Louisiana law that prohibited obtaining insurance on Louisiana property “from any marine insurance company which has not complied in all respects” with Louisiana law For the first time, the court invalidated a state law on substantive due process grounds Holding: A state may not legislate in such a way as to deprive its citizens of liberties guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution). Reasoning: improper and illegal interference with the conduct of a citizen’s right to contract and carry out the terms of the contract. Lochner Era Cases: Lochner, Adkins, Adair, Williams Question whether rights over specifically mentioned and protected by the constitution – unenumerated rights – are of such magnitude that they are protected because they are encompassed within the constitution’s concepts of liberty and property without being specifically listed in the constitution Lochner v. NY (1905) Facts: The Bakeshop Act was a New York state labor law which prohibited bakery employees from working for more than sixty hours per week or ten hours per day (didn’t want immigrants getting ahead too much) Issue: What is the test for determining whether legislation which seeks to impose restrictions upon an individual’s general right to make a contract in relation to his business is not invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding: Act was an unconstitutional abridgement to the liberty to contract and a violation of due process; court must determine whether the legislation is a fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the police power of the State, or an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to enter into a contract related to his business. “Rational Relationship Requirement” : fair, reasonable, appropriate exercise of police Want to protect economic rights, majority in Lochner aligns with dissent in Slaughterhouse 9th amendment issue- incorporation of the 9th amendment, nothing in constitution about hours and baker restrictions so shouldn’t be protected, is there something beyond the literal language of the constitution J. Holmes: don’t use constitutional interpretation as a way to incorporate economic theories of the day Calder v. Bull Court rejected an attack on a CT legislative act setting aside a probate court decree that refused to approve a will Issue: Whether a federal court can nullify a state statute for violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution, which prohibits the passage and application of retroactive laws.
Access to Courts: Griffin v Illinois: court held a state must provide a transcript or its equivalent to an indigent criminal defendant appealing a conviction on nonfederal grounds Courts cannot discriminate on account of poverty Douglas v California: court extended Griffin by holding that a state must appoint counsel for an indigent defendant for the first appeal from a criminal conviction, but only the first appeal Ross v Moffit: refused to extend Douglas to require provisions of counsel in discretionary appeals, the guarantee to equal protection does not require absolute equality but assurances that “indigents have an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly within the adversarial system” Halbert v Michigan: held unconstitutional Michigan’s practice of denying appointed appellate court counsel to indigents convicted by guilty or nolo contendere pleas Court revisited the line distinguishing Douglas from Ross, held Douglas provided the controlling instruction, a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere in a Michigan court does not thereby forfeit all opportunity for appellate review Divorce: Boddie v CT: Facts: indigent welfare recipients who sought to file divorce actions in the state courts but were unable to pay the required court fees and costs for services of process Holding: relied on DP, given the basic position of the marriage relationship in society and states monopolization of the means for dissolving the marriage, due process prohibits states from denying access to courts solely because of inability to pay Welfare and bankruptcy: United States v Kras - Facts: indigent challenged $50 filing fee requirement in voluntary bankruptcy proceedings Holding: bankruptcy is sufficiently distinguishable from divorce, bankruptcy did not rise to the fundamental level of divorce Ortwein v Schwab – the interest in welfare payments, like that in a bankruptcy discharge, “has far less constitutional significance” than the interest of Boddie Paternity: Little v Streater – court held that DP entitled an indigent defendant in a paternity action to state-subsidized blood grouping tests, unique quality of blood grouping tests as source of exculpatory evidence and states prominent role in litigation M.L.B. v S.L.J.: Facts: The Petitioner, M.L.B. (Petitioner), lost custody of her children and cannot afford to appeal the decision. She argues that such a fundamental right requires the State to pay for the costs of her appeal.