Supreme Court Interpretations of Congressional Power
Implied Powers
McCulloch v. Maryland  17 U.S. 316 (1819)
The Court provided a very broad interpretation of the "necessary and proper clause."  Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:
Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly
adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional
Federal Commerce Power
Gibbons v. Ogden  22 U.S. 1 (1824)
The Court ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate commerce, including that within the borders of a given state.

Swift & Co. v. United States  196 U.S. 275 (1905)
The Court ruled that the Commerce power gave Congress the power to pass anti-trust legislation to regulate monopolies.

NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel  301 U.S. 1 (1937)
The Court ruled that the Commerce power also gave Congress the power to regulate labor relations.

Wickard v. Filburn  317 U.S. 111 (1942)
The Court ruled that the Commerce power also gave Congress the power to regulate even purely local activities because it
may still exert a substantial effect on commerce. In this case a farmer was fined for exceeding crop production quotas, even though
his excess production was for his own consumption and not to be sold.

Katzenbach v. McClung  379 U.S. 294 (1964)
The Court upheld the Civil Rights Act as a legitimate application of Congress' Commerce power because discrimination in restaurants
posed significant burdens on "the interstate flow of food and upon the movement on products generally."

U.S. v. Lopez  514 U.S. 549 (1995)
The Court ruled that the Commerce power did not give Congress the authority to restrict gun ownership on public school property.
Proponents in Congress of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 had justified the act by arguing that an unsafe school environment
adversely effects education which, in turn, has an adverse effect on the economy.

Legislative Oversight Power
INS v. Chadha  462 U.S. 919 (1983)
The Court declared legislative veto provisions as an unconstitutional violation of the principle of bicameralism and the presentment
clause of the Constitution.