Aggregate effects doctrine
The Aggregate effects doctrine, Cumulative effects doctrine, or substantial effects 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 calledU.S. v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941).[1]: 126 In the previous term the same idea was the reasoning for the decision of National Labor Relations Board 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]
Since its introduction this doctrine has been applied widely.[4] One common example is alcohol laws, such as Michigan's well known wine shipment restrictions; [4] it is the basis of the influential NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)[5] and some experts apply aggregate effects to the abortion law debate.[4]
This doctrine is differently applied in tax and other cases and its effects upon firm decisions to enter or not enter interstate markets remains unclear.[6]
References[edit]
- ^ 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: Oxford University Press (OUP). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190681050.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-068108-1. OCLC 1034605089. S2CID 158545523. ISBN 9780190681050. Alpha Press (American Public Health Association (APHA)).
- ^ a b c d Jaikumar, Arjun K. (2014). "Red flags in federal quarantine: The questionable constitutionality of federal quarantine after 'NFIB v. Sebelius'". Columbia Law Review. 114 (3). Columbia Law School: 677–714. ISSN 0010-1958. JSTOR 00101958. LCCN 29-10105. OCLC 01564231. Retrieved 2022-12-28.
- ^ a b Chen, James (2003). "Filburn's Legacy". Emory Law Journal. 52: 101–151. S2CID 155553669. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-24.
- ^ a b c Svatek, Marlow (2017). "Seeing of the Forest for the Trees: Why Courts Should Consider Cumulative Effects in the Undue Burden Analysis". N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change. 41 (121).
- ^ Solum, Lawrence B. (2013). "How NFIB v. Sebelius Affects the Constitutional Gestalt". Washington University Law Review. 91: 1–58.
- ^ Thimmesch, Adam B. (2020). "The Unified Dormant Commerce Clause". 92 (2): 331–381.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)