Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 6:20-cv-00564
-2-
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 1746
-3-
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 1747
-4-
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 1748
-5-
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 1749
-6-
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 1750
-7-
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 1751
-8-
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 1752
-9-
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 1753
- 10 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 1754
- 11 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 1755
- 12 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 1756
a statute. Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858, 859 (1985); Jones
v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 850-51 (2000). The meaning of an
act of Congress is not the same question as the scope of power
granted by the Constitution. Moreover, that a building’s use
may “affect” commerce and thus fall within the terms of a
statute does not mean that every interaction dealing with the
building “substantially” affects interstate commerce or is eco-
nomic in character for purposes of constitutional analysis. See
United States v. Corona, 108 F.3d 565, 569 (5th Cir. 1997), as mod-
ified on denial of reh’g (Apr. 7, 1997) (“By inserting the word
‘substantially’ in its formulation of the ‘effects test,’ the Court
reminded us that federal courts have a duty to scrutinize the
Congress’s commerce power and dispelled the notion that de
minimis connections to interstate commerce can legitimate
federal legislative powers.”).
2. Second, the court considers whether the challenged
order has a “jurisdictional element” that “may establish that
the enactment is in pursuance of Congress’ regulation of in-
terstate commerce.” Morrison, 529 U.S. at 612; accord M‘Cul-
loch, 17 U.S. at 421 (focusing, under the Necessary and Proper
Clause, on “the end” pursued by a law). A jurisdictional ele-
ment of a federal crime, for instance, might limit the crime to
instances where certain materials are “transported in interstate
or foreign commerce.” E.g., United States v. Kallestad, 236 F.3d
225, 228-29 (5th Cir. 2000). A jurisdictional element alone,
however, is insufficient to deem a regulation constitutional.
Id. at 229; accord United States v. Ho, 311 F.3d 589, 600 (5th Cir.
2002) (“Congress may not add the words ‘interstate com-
merce’ to every statute and expect the courts meekly to com-
ply.”).
The government admits that the CDC order “does not
limit its application based on a connection to interstate com-
merce.” Doc. 11 at 24. Accordingly, the order has no jurisdic-
tional element. The government misunderstands the inquiry
in arguing that a jurisdictional element is present because the
- 13 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 1757
- 14 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 1758
- 15 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 1759
- 16 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 1760
- 17 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 1761
- 18 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 1762
- 19 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 1763
- 20 -
Case 6:20-cv-00564-JCB Document 45 Filed 02/25/21 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 1764
J. C AMPBELL B ARKER
United States District Judge
- 21 -