The Commerce was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. It involved a dispute between the United States and the state of New York over the regulation of the oyster industry in the waters of New York. The Court held that the power to regulate the oyster industry was a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment, and that the federal government could not interfere with the state's regulation of the industry. The Court also held that the federal government could not use its power to regulate interstate commerce to interfere with the state's regulation of the oyster industry. The case was significant because it established the principle that the federal government could not use its power to regulate interstate commerce to interfere with the states' power to regulate their own industries. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and has been used to protect the states' rights to regulate their own industries. The Commerce case also established the principle that the federal government could not use its power to regulate interstate commerce to interfere with the states' power to regulate their own industries. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and has been used to protect the states' rights to regulate their own industries.

In The Commerce, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a steamboat that had been used to transport passengers and cargo between two states could be seized by federal marshals for violating certain laws. In an 8-1 decision, the majority held that Congress did not have the power to regulate such activities under its authority over interstate commerce. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that Congress had ample authority to pass legislation regulating transportation of persons and goods across state lines in order to protect public health and safety. He argued further that if Congress were unable to do so then it would be impossible for them “to secure uniformity of action” among all states when it came to matters related to interstate commerce. Ultimately, he concluded that allowing individual states or localities control over these matters would lead only “to confusion and disaster” as each locality might enact different regulations on similar subjects which could create chaos in terms of trade between different parts of the country.