Which case upheld federal regulation of interstate commerce by counting the aggregate effect of individual activities, enabling broad regulatory reach?

• A. United States v. Lopez (1995)
• B. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
• C. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)
• D. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Answer: (D)

The idea being tested is that Congress can regulate local, seemingly small-scale activities if their combined effect on interstate commerce is substantial. Wickard v. Filburn is the classic example of this aggregation principle. In that case, the Court held that a farmer growing wheat for his own use could be regulated under federal law because, if many farmers did the same, the total supply would affect prices in interstate markets. So even though the activity was local and individually minor, its cumulative impact on interstate commerce justified federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

As for the other cases, they illustrate different limits or contexts for regulating interstate commerce: Lopez narrows Congress’s reach by requiring a substantial economic effect; Gibbons v. Ogden established broad power over interstate commerce but not via aggregation of non-market activities; Heart of Atlanta Motel involved regulation based on the effect of discrimination on interstate travel, rather than an aggregation of similar local activities. The aggregation approach in Wickard is what makes it the best fit for this question.