By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO
Now is the time for the US Department of Justice under the leadership of Attorney General-nominee Matt Gaetz to overturn NLRB v Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937).
The ruling in NLRB marked a pivotal expansion of federal authority under the Commerce Clause, which has led to overreach into areas traditionally managed by states. This case paved the way for expansive federal control, sidelining state sovereignty and eroding the 10th Amendment’s principles of limited federal power.
By broadly interpreting “interstate commerce” to justify federal oversight in local matters, NLRB set a precedent that enabled extensive bureaucratic regulation across sectors, from labor and environment to healthcare and education.
Federal agencies now exert sweeping influence over every facet of American life. This centralized authority stifles private sector growth, deters innovation, and imposes uniform regulations ill-suited for diverse regional needs. Labor relations, once a state responsibility, have become subject to rigid federal mandates, complicating economic adaptation and reducing market competitiveness. Likewise, federal environmental regulations hinder state autonomy over resource management, imposing top-down policies that may not align with local priorities.
The NLRB decision led to further cases that compounded federal power under the Commerce Clause, including Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, effectively sanctioning limitless government intervention. Overturning NLRB could restore balance by reducing federal overreach and reviving the role of states as primary arbiters of local matters. Repealing this precedent would realign the Commerce Clause with its intended scope, preserving both state sovereignty and market freedom from federal overregulation.
This deliberate centralization of federal power and control culminated with the Supreme Court’s reimagining of the US Constitution’s commerce clause.
Keep in mind the states created and adopted the US Constitution, not the federal government.
In The Federalist Papers, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison argued for a unified approach to commerce regulation to prevent economic discord among states and ensure national cohesion. In Federalist No. 11, Hamilton highlighted the need for centralized trade oversight to enable the young nation to present a united front in global commerce, which was essential for stability and growth. At that time, Congress lacked power over both interstate and foreign trade, leaving each state to set its own policies, which often led to conflicting regulations that hindered trade and strained interstate relations.
Madison expanded on this in Federalist No. 42, explaining that if states could regulate commerce independently, they might impose burdensome tariffs on goods merely passing through. This would increase costs for producers and consumers alike and harm national unity by favoring individual state interests over collective welfare. The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution addressed these issues by granting Congress authority over commerce “with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
This gave the federal government a unifying role in interstate commerce while limiting state powers to regulate only intrastate commerce, those economic activities confined within their borders. This division was intended to support both national economic unity and state sovereignty over local matters.
The overwhelming mandate of American voters for President-elect Donald Trump presents a historic opportunity to restore a constitutional balance between state and federal authority. The appointment of Gaetz as Attorney General now opens the door for such restoration.
The federal expansion, which began with NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., fundamentally altered this balance, dismantling states’ rights by stretching the scope of the Commerce Clause beyond its intended purpose. This decision allowed the federal government to regulate not only genuine interstate commerce, but also local activities tangentially related to it, leading to nearly unchecked federal oversight across a vast range of sectors, from labor to healthcare, education, and the environment.
This ruling, and the legal precedents that followed, sanctioned an era of overreach that subordinated state sovereignty and suppressed the role of states in regulating local economic and social issues. The NLRB decision nullified the 10th Amendment’s intent to limit federal powers, setting the stage for a rise in bureaucratic agencies that impose sweeping regulations without regard for regional diversity and the distinct needs of each state.
Labor laws, previously a state matter, became bound by rigid federal mandates, reducing economic adaptability and competitiveness. Similar federal environmental laws diminished states’ rights to control their resources, often enforcing policies poorly suited to local contexts. The resulting overregulation stifles innovation and economic growth, as local economies and individual freedoms are restrained by federal mandates rather than guided by market dynamics or regional governance.
The Framers argued for national unity in trade regulation to prevent conflict among states, not to establish centralized control over every aspect of economic life. In Federalist No. 11, Hamilton argued that centralized trade oversight was necessary to present a unified front in foreign affairs. Madison, in Federalist No. 42, warned that allowing states to impose tariffs on goods in transit would burden producers and consumers, hindering economic unity. Thus, the Commerce Clause was meant to unify trade among states while preserving each state’s right to govern its local commerce.
NLRB distorted this intent, empowering the federal government to wield the Commerce Clause as a justification for expansive control over intrastate matters.
By overturning NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., the Trump Administration, through new Attorney General Matt Gaetz and the Department of Justice, has the chance to recalibrate federal power to its rightful bounds.
A re-examination of this case would preserve states’ sovereignty, revive market freedoms, and dismantle overregulation, reestablishing the Constitution’s original promise of a government that serves, rather than controls, its people.
Michael Tavoliero is a senior writer at Must Read Alaska.
The tug of war between the Federal and State administrative states and the people is well chronicled in Phil Hamburgers book,” Is the Administrative State Unlawful” I look forward to watching the rapidly evolving display of the many and parallel efforts to diminish the administrative state from all sides, at all angles, and hopefully with great success. The elimination of Chevron deference by SCOTUS was a good start and corrects a problem that had festered for 40 years.