Under FDR, a broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause effectively repealed the 10th Amendment, leaving states without real rights.

Judge as of 2021-11-17, against constitutional-law scholarship and case law. TRUE: the evidence shows that FDR-era Commerce Clause rulings (e.g. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin, United States v. Darby, Wickard v. Filburn) left the 10th Amendment with no practical force, so that states kept no meaningful reserved powers from then on. MOSTLY FALSE: the FDR-era expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause is real and the 10th Amendment was sharply weakened (e.g. Darby calling it a 'truism'), but states kept substantial reserved powers and later rulings revived 10th Amendment limits (e.g. New York v. United States, Printz, Lopez, Morrison), so 'effectively repealed, leaving states without real rights' overstates it. MIXED: scholarship is genuinely divided on whether the change amounted to a practical nullification. FALSE: there was no significant FDR-era expansion of Commerce Clause power at states' expense.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) Justia (reproducing the U.S. Supreme Court opinion) · 1992

   “As interstate commerce has become ubiquitous, activities once considered purely local have come to have effects on the national economy, and have accordingly come within the scope of Congress' commerce power.”

2. E2 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) Justia (reproducing the U.S. Supreme Court opinion) · 1992

   “As the Federal Government's willingness to exercise power within the confines of the Constitution has grown, the authority of the States has correspondingly diminished to the extent that federal and state policies have conflicted.”

3. E3 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) Justia (reproducing the U.S. Supreme Court opinion) · 1992

   “It is in this sense that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered."”

4. E4 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) Justia (reproducing the U.S. Supreme Court opinion) · 1992

   “Instead, the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States.”

The Supreme Court's opinion in New York v. United States (1992) agrees that the commerce power expanded a great deal. It says activities once seen as purely local came within Congress's reach, and that state authority diminished as federal power grew, to the extent federal and state policies conflicted (E1, E2). It also repeats Darby's description of the Tenth Amendment as a "truism" (E3). But the same opinion says the Tenth Amendment still sets limits on federal power that may reserve power to the states (E4). That shows the amendment kept real force, so saying it was "effectively repealed," leaving states without real rights, overstates the case. This matches the criteria's description of "mostly false."