By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 24, 2014//
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Criminal
CCTA — constitutionality
The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act is not unconstitutional.
“Congress may regulate three categories of activity under the Commerce Clause: (1) the use of channels of interstate commerce; (2) the use of instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) activities that have a substantial relation to interstate commerce. United States v. Stokes, 726 F.3d 880, 894 (7th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 833, 187 L. Ed. 2d 573 (2013) (discussing United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995)). The CCTA fits comfortably within the second and third categories. See, e.g., United States v. Abdullah, 162 F.3d 897 (6th Cir. 1998) (contraband cigarettes have a substantial effect on interstate commerce). Therefore, the CCTA is a valid exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause.”
“Further, the CCTA does not violate the principles of federalism contained in the Tenth Amendment. The CCTA does not interfere with the states’ ability to tax or regulate cigarettes. Cf. N. Ill. Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Lavin, 431 F.3d 1004, 1006 (7th Cir. 2005) (‘The national government lacks the authority to regulate how states behave; it cannot direct them to pass or enforce laws.’). Nor does the CCTA compel or commandeer the states to do anything. See United States v. Kenney, 91 F.3d 884, 891 (7th Cir. 1996) (proper exercise of authority under the Commerce Clause that does not compel state action does not violate the Tenth Amendment).”
Affirmed.
13-2662 & 13-2681 U.S. v. Khan
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Adelman, J., Kendall, J.