In the 1984 case of Russell v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a building used for rental purposes can be considered "used in" commerce or affecting commerce, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of federal arson laws. The case arose when defendant James B. Russell was convicted for attempting to burn down his two-unit apartment building in violation of a federal law prohibiting arson on property "used in" interstate or foreign commerce. He appealed his conviction arguing that since he had not rented out any units at the time of attempted arson, it did not affect interstate commerce and thus should not fall under federal jurisdiction. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that rental properties are part of an industry which affects interstate commerce even if they're vacant at certain times because they provide housing—a necessity impacting labor force mobility across state lines—and hence upheld his conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Russell v. United States, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search was fundamentally flawed. He contended that this ruling undermined Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing law enforcement officers to violate these rights with impunity as long as they could later justify their actions in court. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on "good faith" exceptions to warrant requirements, arguing that such exceptions should not be used as a blanket justification for constitutional violations. Instead, he suggested that courts should carefully scrutinize each case to determine whether police acted reasonably under the circumstances.