There are two major types of Commerce Clause cases in the courts: commerce clause and dormant commerce clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause is a doctrine that came about when the Court said “Hell, If Congress has the authority to regulate commerce then that power is plenary! So, even if Congress has done nothing, we can’t have States regulating or affecting commerce because that is exceeding their power.” Regular Commerce Clause cases challenge a federal law for exceeding Congress’ authority to enact it. Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways is the paradigmatic case for this. NB: The Commerce Clause doesn’t justify anything. It provides the authority to act.

So, what does this case mean? Who knows. Commerce Clause jurisprudence is in a serious state of confusion ever since Lopez and Morrisson. I think you have to look at Rehnquist et al.’s somewhat convoluted examination of the commerce clause and their notions of “Federalism” to get a sense of what’s happening. It also resonates with their jurisprudence around congressional abridgment of state sovereign immunity under the 14th amendment. See Garrett.

It seems the Courts are having trouble with aggregation and the tension between the population and the individual. Ultimately, I think the problem is being stuck with an 18th century notion of commerce and federalism when confronted with a complex interdependent national and global economy. I have read a few articles taking issue with these local tax credits under the WTO framework as well.

Wickard, at 317 U.S. 111 (1942) is a nice counter-example of what commerce clause jurisprudence used to be.

Though, I have to agree: what activity doesn’t have some effect on interstate commerce in some tiny way? It would seem to me that the government needs good leeway to actually enable/regulate commerce but at the same time they might need better limits set on what “commerce” actually is.

I seem to recall some case about people growing tomatoes in their own back yard for their own consumption as falling under the commerce clause. Frankly, I think that’s taking things a little too far but how can such silly cases be separated from “good” applications of the power to regulate interstate commerce? Are we running into the wall of “for any set of laws there will be some unavoidable rediculous cases” that you have mentioned to me before?