Which case limited Congress's power under the Commerce Clause?

• A. United States v. Lopez
• B. Wickard v. Filburn
• C. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
• D. NFIB v. Sebelius

Answer: (A)

The key idea being tested is where the line falls for Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Lopez set a clear limit by saying that not all actions with some connection to crime fall under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. In this case, the law made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. The Court held that this activity is not an economic activity, and its possession near schools does not have a substantial enough nexus to interstate commerce to justify federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. This marked a shift toward limiting federal authority in areas that aren’t clearly economic in nature.

To see the contrast, earlier decisions like Wickard v. Filburn allowed Congress to regulate local production if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and Heart of Atlanta Motel used the Commerce Clause to outlaw racial discrimination in public accommodations. NFIB v. Sebelius is different in that it upheld the ACA’s individual mandate as an exercise of the taxing power, not a Commerce Clause regulation. So Lopez is the case that most directly limits Congress’s reach under the Commerce Clause.