United States v. Morrison (529 U.S. 598)/Concurrence Thomas

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
111785United States v. Morrison (529 U.S. 598) — Concurring OpinionClarence Thomas
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Concurring Opinion
Thomas
Dissenting Opinions
Souter
Breyer


Justice Thomas, concurring.

The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a "substantial effects" test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress' powers and with this Court's early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.