Congressional Authority Over Commerce Case Analysis

The congressional authority over commerce has been defined in the Court as having three broad categories, allowing for Congress to 1) regulate channel use for interstate commerce; 2) regulate and protect instrumentalities of interstate commerce even when the main threat stems from intrastate commerce; and 3) regulate activities which hold a substantial relation to interstate commerce (U.S. v. Lopez, 457R). It should be noted that the Court has determined commerce to be “…the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 396R) and for which goods or services are exchanged. The functioning of commerce, including its …show more content…
Attorney General Jeff Sessions prosecutes a free clinic performing late-term abortions which violate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (PBABA), pro-choice advocacy organizations (PCAO) are challenging the legality of the ban based on their view that Congress is exceeding its authority under the Commerce Clause. The PBABA itself states “Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.” The PCAOs argue that 1) that clinic’s activities are not part of inter-state commerce; 2) providing free abortion services is by definition non-commercial activity; and 3) these activities have no substantial effect on interstate commerce. As “none of our Commerce Clause cases can be viewed in isolation” (Gonzales v. Raich, 468R), Court’s position must include analysis of each of the major Commerce Clause cases in order to include a full …show more content…
U.S. v. Lopez cited Jones & Laughlin Steel in its majority opinion, writing that control over commerce “‘…would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government’” (U.S. v. Lopez, 457R). In this case the Court rightly ruled that Congress regulating gun laws in states allow for control over all acts of violence, akin to Morrison with the risk of allowing control relating to gender-motivated crimes. The current case holds a similar issue—if Congress is allowed to regulate abortions, then it could gain control over healthcare as a whole, especially matters of women’s