Reference no: EM13498358

Congress passed the Consumer Credit Protection Act and used it to reach and arrest Cruz for loan sharking activities (collecting high interest loan payments). Cruz claims his criminal activity was purely local and as such subject only to local and state criminal laws and penalties. The U.S. claims Cruz is subject to the harsher Federal laws and penalties enacted under the power of the commerce clause. Is Congress' use of the commerce clause to pass the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and to reach Cruz, a lawful use of the commerce clause power? Cite any case(s) that may support your position.

Charles Jennings, a Boston resident and devoted non-smoker, spent his life educating people about the risks of smoking. In 1992 an ad for Winston cigarettes featuring Jennings' image without his permission appeared in several French magazines. Some of these magazines were on sale at newsstands in Boston, where Jennings found out about it. Winston ackowledges that the magazine was sold in Boston but claims they did not know their distributor would sell the magazines in the United States and was done so without their knowledge or consent. Winston claims that the distributor they used had never sold magazines in the United States before. Jennings now sues Winston in a Massachusetts state court. Winston, a French company located in Paris, with no other connection to Massachusetts, claims the Massachusetts court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. Does the Massachusetts court have jurisdiction over Winston so as to render a binding decision in the case? Use any case(s) discussed in class to support your position.