That is where the case of Swift and Company v. United States comes in. In this case filed in 1905, the U.S. filed a case against Swift & Co. and other meat dealers throughout the country as they controlled approximately 60% of this market. The U.S. brought a case against Swift & Co due to attempting to conspire in fixing prices. The courts used the Sherman Act which was a legislative law, which attempted to ban monopolies. The first trial court sided with the U.S. at which point Swift & Co appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Swift & Co argued that the Sherman Act could only be legal due to the commerce clause regulating interstate commerce, and Swift & Co. argued that they were only engaged in local trade. However the U.S. Supreme Court again agreed with the U.S. by responding that the Sherman Act is valid and that congress can regulate this trade due to the fact that while most of their trade was local, many of the meats were sold out of state. Since the meats were sold out of state, Swift & Co were considered to be a part of what Justice Holmes referred to as “the stream of interstate commerce” (McBride, Swift & Co. v. U.S. (1905)). This meant that even though most of Swift & Co operations were local in nature, their entire business stream was a prime player in the interstate commerce of this …show more content…
The commerce clause has also been used during the civil rights movement in 1964 for the case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. The Heart of Atlanta was a motel in Atlanta, Georgia which only served whites, and would refuse service to any minorities. Once the civil rights act was passed the Heart of Atlanta’s owner filed a suit in a federal district court. The owner claimed that title II under the civil rights act was not enforceable using the commerce clause. The federal district court at this point disagreed with the owner and placed a permanent injunction on the motel. This injunction prohibited the motel from discriminating against minorities. The owner of the motel then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was heard and in a unanimous decision the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the previous decision that the owner could not discriminate. The court argued that since the motel would advertise out of state and also had a large proportion of their customers from out of state, congress does in fact have the power to enforce the civil rights act using the commerce