Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come.
The Supreme Court's decision last month to overturn a decades-old decision that gave regulators more leeway to set rules will harm innovation and threaten U.S. economic vitality, according to ...
The Supreme Court has held that Congress has implied powers through the Commerce Clause. For example, in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States and United States v. Darby Lumber Co., it was held that Congress could divide monopolies, prohibit child labor, and establish a minimum wage under the Commerce Clause.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and its rulings have shaped the United States for over two centuries. In April, the Supreme Court issued an order to keep a widely used abortion ...
The U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, nor does it specify any specific positions for the court's members. The Constitution assumes the existence of the office of the chief justice, because it mentions in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 that "the Chief Justice" must preside over impeachment trials of the President ...
The Court found the federal law valid although the marijuana in question had been grown and consumed within a single state and had never entered interstate commerce. The court held Congress may regulate an intrastate economic good as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate interstate commerce.
Lower court opinions reflecting a thoughtful review of factual and legal issues "actually help us do our business," she said. One case taken from the shadow docket concerned a near total ban on ...
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.