Congress justified that National Firearms Act of 1934 as a revenue measure—a rationale undermined by the repeal of taxes on suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
Judge Willett thinks that some federal statutes have been interpreted and applied in ways that conflict with the notion that the federal government only has limited and enumerated powers.
The DOJ tried to claim jurisdiction because he drove on a road.
The federal law relies on a risible reading of the Commerce Clause to restrict a constitutional right.
The Commerce Clause protects free trade between the states.
Academics are supposed to discover nonobvious, counterintituitive truths. But, especially in recent years, much of my work involves defending positions that seem obvious to most laypeople, even though many experts deny them.
The taxes on sound suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, originally enacted in 1934, were meant to be prohibitive, imposing bans in the guise of raising revenue.
Like it or not, Gonzales v. Raich remains good law, and federal prohibition is constitutional under current doctrine.
U.S. District Judge Mark Walker says Upside Foods has plausibly alleged that the law's protectionism violates the "dormant" Commerce Clause.
Gabriel Metcalf argues that his prosecution under the Gun-Free School Zones Act violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The book is the most extensive analysis to date of constitutional issues arising from the War on Drugs, and why the constitutional law largely failed to constrain its abuses.
How legislators learned to stop worrying about the constitutionality of federal drug and gun laws by abusing the Commerce Clause.
A federal judge rejected the government’s excuses for banning home production of liquor.
How legislators learned to stop worrying about the constitutionality of federal drug and gun laws by abusing the Commerce Clause
A potentially important post-NFIB enumerated powers challenge.
A modern legal battle challenges the federal ban on distilling alcohol at home—a favorite hobby of the Founding Fathers.
California's stringent AI regulations have the power to stifle innovation nationwide, impacting all of us.
Fourth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
The former and would-be president is keen to avoid alienating voters who reject both kinds of extremism on the issue.
The late Supreme Court justice eloquently defended property rights and state autonomy.
A federal lawsuit argues that it is time to reassess the Commerce Clause rationale for banning intrastate marijuana production and distribution.
The law makes it a felony to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, which covers the sidewalk in front of Gabriel Metcalf's house.
Conservative legal scholar William Hodes argues that federal restrictions on abortion are beyond the scope of Congressional power.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will soon put a permanent stop to the EPA's Clean Water Act land grab.
What power lets Congress exempt harassment allegations from NDAs?
Professor Natelson versus Professor Ablavsky
The Constitution's commerce clause guarantees a domestic free trade zone. A state law that bars a resident from traveling to take advantage of another state’s economic activity would be unconstitutional.
The problem is the Court's ultra-broad interpretation of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But the justices might cut that back.
The senator's avowed devotion to federalism is no match for his political ambitions.
The Republican senator improbably claims his bill is authorized by the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause.
Notwithstanding federal pot prohibition, the appeals court says, the requirement violated the Commerce Clause's implicit prohibition of anti-competitive interstate trade barriers.
National legislation and extraterritorial application of state laws are inconsistent with the local leeway that the Constitution protects.
Questions about the scope of federal power will remain.
Without citing any constitutional authority to dictate state abortion policies, the bill would have overridden regulations that have been upheld or have yet to be tested.
The justice overlooks the long American tradition of pharmacological freedom and the dubious constitutional basis for federal bans.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is probably "yes." But that precedent might not hold, thanks in part to Clarence Thomas.
Do California's rules violate the dormant commerce clause?
The justice's reference to a national "police power" raised some eyebrows.
The argument hinges largely on what makes an emergency standard "necessary."
Absent Roe, current Supreme Court precedent likely gives the federal government considerable power to either restrict or protect abortion rights. But that precedent could potentially be limited in ways advocated by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an unlikely potential savior of abortion rights!
The government argues that the 5th Circuit erred in concluding that the rule "grossly exceeds OSHA's statutory authority."
A unanimous three-judge panel concludes that the decree "grossly exceeds OSHA's statutory authority."
The appeals court said the rule, which was published on Friday, raises "grave statutory and constitutional issues."
Gov. Ron DeSantis' embrace of the law contradicts his avowed commitment to economic freedom.
Without a mandate penalty, the challengers had no standing.
