• Last updated on November 11, 2022

The Supreme Court’s ruling created a distinction between manufacturing and commerce that survived many years but is no longer valid.

An Iowa law that prohibited companies from manufacturing liquor for sale outside the state was challenged as an unconstitutional attempt by a state to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, making a distinction between manufacturing and commerce. It ruled that under the commerce clause, congressional regulatory power did not extend to the manufacture of products. The Court stated that the police power of states was sufficient for them to regulate the manufacture of a potentially dangerous product such as alcohol without interfering with federal powers. This distinction survived for many years but was gradually abandoned by later Courts as they expanded federal control over commerce.Commerce clause;Kidd v. Pearson[Kidd v. Pearson]

Commerce, regulation of

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

Katzenbach v. McClung

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.

Wickard v. Filburn

Categories: History Content