Any case that shows Congress has exceeded its bounds on interstate commerce by declaring everything under the sun as "interstate commerce" when it really isn't has a chance to reign in Congress' abusive power bigly. For instance, we all know the Roberts' SCOTUS allowed Obamacare with the individual mandate to slide because the mandate was "just a tax". But without the mandate, the other issue is that Congress can't tell us what we have to buy or can't buy without calling health insurance an interstate commerce -- which they describe because the Affordable Care Act mandates that we all be allowed to buy insurance from companies in other states. So when Obamacare was being taken to court one of the arguments the libs were making for it was it's an interstate commerce and therefore within Congress' purview.
And that's just Obamacare. We could go on and on with other slight of hands to label anything Congress wants as "interstate commerce" to let them slide by the 10th Amendment's "not delegated" clause that protects us from Congressional overreach.
Absolutely agreed. That's another strong reason for the court to hide from this case. I think we really seriously need to take a very close look at exactly what should, and should not, be considered 'interstate commerce'. Ideally, that would be defined by congress, but they are utterly incapable of being nearly precise enough to be of any use.