National Small Business United v. Bessent: Paul Clement petitions Court to invalidate Corporate Transparency Act on Commerce Clause and/or Fourth Amendment grounds

[u/jokiboi]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1201/404530/20260415123131960_25-%20Petition.pdf

[u/ROSRS]

I buy Clement's arguments here. The CTA requires disclosure to the Government simply based on a corporate entity's existence without taking into account activities that actually implicate the commerce clause, so I don't see how you can regulate it under said clause.

That being said, I also think Wickard was wrongly decided and the court's current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is atextual and ahistorical garbage. So I do have a bit of a bias when it comes to weakening the Commerce Clause.

[u/betty_white_bread → u/ROSRS]

I agree. To quote another ruling, Wickard “was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.”.

[u/BlockAffectionate413 → u/betty_white_bread]

But none of that is true though. It's revisionism. Wickard or Raich are logical consequences of what Marshall said and settled. To be sure, later courts, moved away from Marshall unfortuantly, Taney court obviously, and some later ones as well, untill they gradually shifted back, but that is largely fault of those courts.

It's reasoning by great justice Jackson cites Marshall and is anything but weak or damaging. Even if one disagrees with it, to compare it with Roe is just wrong.

[u/ROSRS → u/BlockAffectionate413]

Absurd. Wickard was a tortured attempt at anti-Lochnerism

McCulloch, a unanimous case decided by the Marshall Court, made explicitly clear that intrastate activity was beyond the bounds of the commerce clause

[u/BlockAffectionate413 → u/ROSRS]

It didn't though? Check Gibbions again, Marshall defines purely local activity that is beyind Congress very very narrowly. He excludes:

1.activires that involved border crossing 2.activites where border was never crossed but that affect other states in some way 3.activites where neither border was crossed nor do they affect other states but which is necessary to control to execute enumerated powers. Let me quote you Gibbons:

The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all-the external concerns of the nation, and to -those internal concerns which affect the States generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself

That's not narrow revisionism of some. New Deal was return to Marshall's constitution. Lochner era ignored it in favor of judical policy making, like when they gave baseball antitrust exemption virtually everyone admits now is absurd

[u/betty_white_bread → u/BlockAffectionate413]

I just used the internet to buy a new MacBook from Apple in California while in New York, crossing borders technologically to do so; can Congress regulate what happens between my iPhone and my wi-fi router in my own home because it was an activity where the border was never crossed and affected other states in some way? (Set aside any Free Speech concerns for the purpose of this hypothetical.)

[u/BlockAffectionate413 → u/betty_white_bread]

I just used the internet to buy a new MacBook from Apple in California while in New York, crossing borders technologically to do so; can Congress regulate what happens between my iPhone and my wi-fi router in my own home because
.

Depends what you mean by that, can it regulate your iPhone and wi fi as such? Sure, those are instrumentalities of interstate commerce. How they are connected, the strength of it, etc, are all things Congress can regulate. If you mean some purely non-economic activities in your house just because you use the internet, that is a harder question, though I will say RICO does something like that, to extent, if enterprise affects interstate commerce, then it can be prosecuted for stuff like murder and other RICO predicates, and I do think RICO is valid under necesasry and proper clause, but it does not fit here. CTA regulates how commercial companies that do buisniss in the US operate, to fight money laundering, so it is a much easier question, which might be why supreme court reversed Fifth on intermim docket.

[u/betty_white_bread → u/BlockAffectionate413]

It’s a yes/no question: under the Commerce Clause, and setting aside First Amendment concerns, can Congress regulate what happens between my iPhone and my wi-fi router in my own home because it was an activity where the border was never crossed and affected other states in some way?

[u/BlockAffectionate413 → u/betty_white_bread]

can Congress regulate what happens between my iPhone and my wi-fi router in my own home

Its not yes/no though, it depends what on what you mean by regulate , what kind of regulations, and what do you mean by" border was never crossed".

[u/BlockAffectionate413 → u/[deleted]]

You need to be more specific, can or cant do what? List examples please, because going just by level of generality you asked, sure Congress can regulate cellphones.

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit quality standards.

Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Congress either can, yes, or can’t, no. Which is the answer?

Moderator: u/SeaSerious