Supreme Court of the United States · 1869 · Constitutional Law
76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 41 (1869)
Updated
Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseNecessary and Proper ClausePolice PowerFederalisminternal tradeintrastate commercepolice regulation
Facts
The indictment was brought under a federal statutory provision prohibiting the sale of a described kind of illuminating oil. The government argued that the prohibition was valid as an aid to the internal revenue system because other illuminating oils were taxed. But the prohibited oils themselves were not taxed. The case therefore presented whether Congress could forbid such sales within a State.
Issue
Does Congress have power under the Constitution to prohibit the sale of a particular illuminating oil within the limits of a State? Can such a prohibition be sustained as a necessary and proper means of carrying into execution Congress's taxing power?
Rule
The constitutional power to regulate commerce among the States does not include power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate States, except where such interference is a necessary and proper means for carrying into execution some other expressly granted power. A prohibition aimed at intrastate trade is valid only if it is an appropriate and plainly adapted means of executing that other federal power; otherwise, as a police regulation relating exclusively to internal state trade, it has no constitutional operation within State limits.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress enacts a statute making it a federal crime to sell a certain household solvent anywhere within a State, even when the sale, delivery, and use all occur entirely in Ohio. Mara Nolan, who sold the solvent from her shop in Columbus to a local customer, is prosecuted under the statute.
Is the statute constitutional as applied to Mara's sale?
Explanation. The majority rule is that the power to regulate commerce among the States does not itself authorize Congress to interfere with the internal trade and business of a separate State. A federal prohibition aimed at a sale wholly within Ohio is invalid unless it is justified as a necessary and proper means of executing some other enumerated power. The opinion rejects the idea that Congress has a general police power over purely intrastate sales.