1. United States v. Five Gambling Devices, (1953)

2. Facts: This case involved three companion proceedings arising from a statute that prohibited the shipment of gambling machines in interstate commerce. The statute required the registration and reporting of all gambling machines sold, by all manufacturers and dealers in gambling devices, not just those that had some nexus to interstate commerce.

3. Procedural Posture: The lower courts found the statutory interpretation unconstitutional.

4. Issue: Whether the statute requiring the registration of all gambling devices by all manufacturers and dealers was a permissible exercise of the commerce power when it was interpreted to apply to purely intrastate transactions.

5. Holding: No.

6. ∏ Argument: The statute should be applied according to its literal terms without any showing that any individual activity be shown to have an actual effect on interstate commerce. To have an effective regulation of those gambling machine related activities that do have a relationship to interstate commerce, it is necessary to require reporting of all intrastate transactions.

7. ∆ Argument: The statute is unconstitutional because it regulates purely intrastate transactions that can not be shown to have any nexus to interstate commerce.

8. Majority Reasoning: No precedent of the Court has upheld the power of Congress to enact legislation which penalizes failure to report information concerning acts that have not been shown to be related to interstate commerce. Although the Darby “bootstrap” theory, which allows a class of activities to be regulated even though it is over-inclusive, is applicable under its own facts, the present case is distinguishable on its facts. However, the traditional limitations of the federal system do not go against the lower courts findings. There is no unmistakable intent of Congress to apply the act to the police powers normally reserved for the states.