Jump to content

Aggregate effects doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Invasive Spices (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 6 January 2023 (earlier precedent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Aggregate effects doctrine or Cumulative effects doctrine is a legal doctrine in United States federal law. The AED permits extension of the regulation of interstate commerce into any action which affects interstate commerce only when aggregated with other actions.[1][2] It is most often associated with Wickard v. Filburn 1942.[1]: 125 [2] In Wickard a wheat farmer growing wheat solely for animal feed within the confines of his own farm was found to be regulatable because private growth for private consumption was the primary reason for decrease of demand.[1]: 125 [2]

Although mostly associated with Wickard, it is also referred to as "substantial effects"[2] in another formative case the preceding year, U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co., 1941.[1]: 126  In the previous term the same idea was the reasoning for the decision of NLRB v. Fainblatt.[3] In Fainblatt the "plenary" power of interstate regulation "extends to all such commerce be it great or small" and had never been held "to be constitutionally restricted because in any particular case the volume of the commerce affected may be small."[3]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Burris, Scott; Berman, Micah L.; Penn, Matthew; Holiday, Tara Ramanathan (2018). The New Public Health Law : A Transdisciplinary Approach to Practice and Advocacy. Oxford: Alpha Press (American Public Health Association (APHA), Oxford University Press (OUP)). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190681050.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-068108-1. OCLC 1034605089. S2CID 158545523. ISBN 9780190681050.
  2. ^ a b c d "Red flags in federal quarantine: The questionable constitutionality of federal quarantine after 'NFIB v. Sebelius'". Columbia Law Review. Columbia Law School. 2014. ISSN 0010-1958. JSTOR 00101958. LCCN 29-10105. OCLC 01564231. Retrieved 2022-12-28.
  3. ^ a b Chen, James (2003). "Filburn's Legacy". Emory Law Journal. 52: 101–151. S2CID 155553669. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-24.