Attorneys On Retainer Files Amicus Brief: United States v. Morgan (2024)
April 28, 2025
Attorneys Andy Marcantel and Marc J. Victor of The Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm have launched their first case through The Attorneys On Retainer Association. This case challenges the broad interpretation of the commerce clause by federal courts. There is a growing concern regarding the federal government’s overreach, specifically how the commerce clause has been misused over the years to undermine individual freedoms. This blog will examine the issue through historical contexts, discuss key legal precedents, and outline AOR’s ongoing commitment to defending individual freedoms and promote legal advocacy.
Historical Context of the Commerce Clause
The commerce clause, found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, was originally designed to prevent states from enacting protectionist tariffs against one another, essentially facilitating a free trade zone among the states. The Founding Fathers intended Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the states to ensure the smooth flow of trade. However, over the past century, judicial interpretations have dramatically expanded the reach of this clause. Beginning around the 1930s and accelerated by the New Deal era, courts have allowed Congress to regulate nearly every aspect of economic and even some non-economic activity, fundamentally shifting the balance of power from states to the federal government.
“Most people don’t get excited about talking about the commerce clause, but it’s really the single thing most responsible for eroding freedoms of Americans in America today.”
How the Commerce Clause Became a Tool for Federal Authority
Landmark rulings have frequently misinterpreted the commerce clause, leading to expansive federal control over local matters that were never intended to fall under federal jurisdiction. Agencies like the ATF or DEA derive their regulatory authority from the commerce clause, which has led to widespread federal involvement in individual lives and businesses without constitutional backing. Moreover, it has fueled federal criminalization efforts, such as firearms regulations.
“The commerce clause was put there to regulate interstate commerce among the several states… to sort of keep it flowing smoothly. It was meant to create a giant free trade zone, not to set up a sprawling federal regulatory framework.”
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
The prominent Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn demonstrates this shift, permitting federal regulation of even local activities if, overall, they affect interstate commerce, redefined the commerce clause. In this landmark decision, a farmer growing wheat solely for personal use was subject to federal restrictions because his actions, combined with others’, could impact interstate wheat prices. This case highlights the importance of understanding large legal precedents that have set the stage for modern interpretations of federal power.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Gonzalez v. Raich was a Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the commerce clause to prohibit local cultivation and use of marijuana, even when allowed by state law. The Court reasoned that such intrastate activity, when combined, could impact the national interstate marijuana market. This ruling affirmed broad federal authority over drug regulation, reinforcing federal supremacy over conflicting state laws.
“Wickard v. Filburn blew the top off the commerce clause. It said the federal government can regulate purely intrastate activity if, in the aggregate, it substantially affects interstate commerce. That’s how the government went from policing wheat on a farm to regulating nearly every part of life.”
The Amicus Brief: Challenging the Limits
Recently, The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm filed an amicus brief in United States v. Morgan (2024) before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, spotlighting a critical constitutional issue: Can the federal government charge someone with possession of a machine gun based on commerce clause jurisdiction when the firearm has not moved across state lines? Morgan’s case, initially dismissed on Second Amendment grounds, is now on appeal, with the government contesting the dismissal.
The amicus brief drafted by Attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andy Marcantel argues that the broad federal intrusion into areas traditionally reserved for state control violates the original constitutional boundaries of congressional power. They urge the court to reconsider the post-Wickard evolution that has allowed federal power to expand unchecked, threatening individual freedoms and state authority.
“We’ve never been better situated to bring arguments that roll back what’s become the largest source of federal power and restore limited government as the founders intended.”
Why This Fight Matters
This fight is not just a technical legal dispute; it targets the core of American federalism and the principle that government powers should be limited and specified. By challenging the modern interpretation of the commerce clause, The Attorneys on Retainer Association aims to restore constitutional balance. A ruling narrowing the commerce clause scope could undermine many federal agencies and regulations that currently restrict freedoms under the pretense of interstate commerce regulation. It would signal a pivotal shift toward a government that respects constitutional limits and individual liberty.
Attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andy Marcantel envision filing similar briefs in multiple appellate courts, working to build momentum toward a Supreme Court decision that revisits and potentially overrules decades of expansive commerce clause jurisprudence. They plan to publish a comprehensive law review article providing historical and legal analysis to bolster these arguments and educate the public and judiciary on the Founding Fathers true intent.
“We’re trying to put the arguments in front of the Supreme Court that really would make a very big difference and get us back to what the founders of our country, the framers of the Constitution also intended, which was a government of very strictly limited federal powers.”
Conclusion
This marks the start of a significant legal effort to restore the balance of power and uphold the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Attorneys On Retainer is committed to this cause, and we are focused on addressing the challenges posed by the commerce clause.
Visit attorneysonretainer.us to learn how this program empowers people to defend themselves legally and supports vital constitutional challenges like the one unfolding in the 10th Circuit. If you would like to know more about our law firm or our self-defense protection program Attorneys On Retainer, please call 866-404-5112 or email us.
