22. Is this federal statute constitutional?

Litigation over the state law resulted in a final decision by the United States Supreme Court that the law impermissibly burdened interstate commerce and therefore was unconstitutional. Congress later enacted a statute permitting any state to enact a law regulating the degree of light reflectiveness of the exteriors of commercial trucks using the state's highways.

A state legislature conducted an investigation into a series of fatal accidents in the state involving commercial trucks with exteriors made of polished aluminum. The investigation revealed that the sun's glare reflecting off these trucks blinded the drivers of other vehicles. In response, the state's legislature enacted a law prohibiting commercial trucks with polished aluminum exteriors from traveling on the state's highways.

No, because the U.S. Supreme Court has already determined that state laws of this type impermissibly burden interstate commerce
No, because Article III vests the judicial power in the federal courts, the essence of judicial power is the ability to render a final judgment, and this statute overrules a final judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court
Yes, because Article I, Section 8 grants Congress authority to enact statutes authorizing states to impose burdens on interstate commerce that would otherwise be prohibited
Yes, because Article I, Section 8 grants Congress authority to enact statutes for the general welfare, and Congress could reasonably believe that state laws regulating the light reflectiveness of the exteriors of commercial trucks promote the general welfare

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 empowers Congress to «regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.» Commerce is defined as «every species of commercial intercourse. .. which concerns more states than one,» including virtually every form of activity involving or affecting two or more states. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the power of Congress to regulate commerce, although very broad, does have limits. To be within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, a federal law must regulate under one of four categories: (i) channels of interstate commerce; (ii) instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons and things in interstate commerce; (iii) articles moving in interstate commerce; or (iv) activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Court has consistently regarded transportation or traffic as commerce, whether or not a commercial activity is involved.

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that «in all other Cases before mentioned, [i.e., arising under the Constitution, Act of Congress, or treaty], the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.»

Although Congress's power to influence the Supreme Court has its limits, Congress may respond to a Court ruling by passing legislation regarding an issue that the Court previously struck down. See, e.g., United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941). Such a legislative response, especially when it seeks to regulate future cases, will most likely be upheld if it falls under the umbrella of Congress's plenary authority within the Commerce Clause.

Under Article I, Section 8, Congress does have the right to «lay and collect taxes. .. to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare of the United States. . .» But the phrase «provide for the general welfare» in this sentence modifies «lay and collect taxes. .. to pay the debts. . .» Therefore, Congress may spend for the general welfare, it may tax for the general welfare, but it may not regulate for the general welfare. See United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). For this reason, a congressional regulatory scheme has to be justified as a reasonable means of carrying out some other enumerated power, typically the commerce power.

C is correct. Although Congress may be prohibited from enacting a statute in order to explicitly overrule a previous final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress still has the ability to broadly regulate under its Commerce Clause power. The statute permitting any state to regulate the degree of light reflectiveness of the exteriors of commercial trucks using the state's highways is a valid and constitutional enactment pursuant to the commerce power because these trucks are instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

A is incorrect. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court previously determined that the state law impermissibly burdened interstate commerce, Congress has plenary authority to regulate activity within its commerce power. Pursuant to this authority, Congress may even legislate future cases in a way that is inconsistent with a previous Court ruling if it falls within congressional power to do so. See, e.g., United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941).

B is incorrect. The statute does not specifically overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's previous judgment. Rather, it simply changes the law for future cases, which is an action that is within the legislative power of Congress to regulate commercial activity and does not encroach on the Court's judicial power to decide cases within its jurisdiction.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. While the Constitution gives Congress the power to appropriate money in service of promoting the general welfare, Congress does not have the power to enact statutes to regulate for the general welfare. See United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). This means that typically, a congressional regulation requires justification under another enumerated power, often the commerce power, as is the case here.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

22. Is this federal statute constitutional?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired