pecifically for those ends, the Court inquired quite often into the commerce among states and controlled much legislation enacted for this purpose. However, after many of Roosevelt’s New Deal programs had been struck down by the Court, the era of Dual Federalism came to an end as the President added more justices to the Court who were favorable to his programs. In United States v. Darby, in 1941, the Court “refused to inquire into the motive and purpose of a regulation, leaving such debate to the legislature. They recognized any commerce which was so commingled with or related to interstate commerce that all must be regulated if interstate commerce is to be controlled as being interstate” (Commerce 1).
In NRLB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., in 1937, the powers of the Court were broadened with regard to interstate commerce regulation because any activity which had a close relationship with interstate commerce was considered interstate. For example, it was determined that manufacturing, even though all of its activities were intrastate represented interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 also broadened the scope of interstate commerce which broadened the power of the U.S. government to regulate state affairs. This case found that even trivial activities could affect interstate commerce even if wholly intrastate in nature. These types of cases would continue to broaden the powers of Congress and the U.S. Government when it came to the regulation of state commerce. The landmark United States v. Lopez decision helped to start a trend towards the Dual Federalism that existed before the Roose
...