Commerce Clause scrutiny. III. Conclusion For the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion for Judgm Shield of S.C., Inc., No. 81-1639-1, 1982 WL 1955, at *6 (D.S.C. Nov. 2, 1982) (concluding that a State health agency charged with health planning activities under a State statute benefits from state action anti-trust immunity). 4 . "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 8. 5 . The Supreme Court frequently has held that Congress did not state its intent to relieve a state action from the limits of the Commerce Clause sufficiently explicitly. See, e.g., South-Central Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82, 90, 104 S.Ct. 2237, 81 L.Ed.2d 71 (1984) (<HOLDING>); New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455
holding fjraud on the part of the insured in the procurement of the policy  is sufficient to defeat a recovery in an action on such policy holding that the act does not give horses higher status than cattle on public lands holding similar agreement void on public policy grounds holding that a congressional policy allowing vertical integration of logging on federal lands does not indicate that a similar policy is permissible on state lands holding that state officers may execute on tribal lands process related to offreservation violations of state law