document_title: A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)

question_text: who plays freddy krueger in nightmare return to elm street

text: A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)

text: Films[edit]

text:
Film
Director
Writer(s)
Producer(s)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Wes Craven
Robert Shaye

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
Jack Sholder
David Chaskin

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)
Chuck Russell
Screenplay by: Wes Craven & Bruce Wagner and Chuck Russell & Frank Darabont
Story by: Wes Craven & Bruce Wagner

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
Renny Harlin
Screenplay by: Brian Helgeland and Jim Wheat & Ken Wheat
Story by: William Kotzwinkle and Brian Helgeland
Robert Shaye and Rachel Talalay

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)
Stephen Hopkins
Screenplay by: Leslie Bohem
Story by: John Skipp & Craig Spector and Leslie Bohem
Robert Shaye and Rupert Harvey

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)
Rachel Talalay
Screenplay by: Michael De Luca
Story by: Rachel Talalay
Robert Shaye and Aron Warner

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)
Wes Craven
Marianne Maddalena

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)
Ronny Yu
Damian Shannon & Mark Swift
Sean S. Cunningham

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Samuel Bayer
Screenplay by: Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer
Story by: Wesley Strick
Michael Bay, Andrew Form and Brad Fuller

text: Overview[edit]

text: The original film, written and directed by Wes Craven and titled A Nightmare on Elm Street, was released in 1984. The story focuses on Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) attacking Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends in their dreams, successfully killing all but Nancy, in fictional Springwood, Ohio. Krueger's back-story is revealed by Nancy's mother, Marge, who explains he was a child murderer. The parents of Springwood killed Krueger after he was acquitted on a technicality. Nancy defeats Freddy by pulling him from the dream world and stripping him of his powers when she stops being afraid of him.[6] Freddy returns to attack the new family, the Walshes, living in Nancy Thompson's house in 1985's A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. Freddy possesses the body of Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton), using him to kill. Jesse is temporarily saved by his girlfriend Lisa (Kim Myers), who helps him exorcise Krueger's spirit.[7]

text: Wes Craven returned to write A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, released in 1987. In the second sequel, Freddy is systematically killing the last of the Elm Street children. The few remaining children have been placed in Westin Hills Mental Institution, for allegedly attempting suicide. Nancy Thompson arrives at Westin Hills as a new intern, and realizes the children are being killed by Freddy. With the help of Dr. Neil Gordon (Craig Wasson), Nancy helps Kristen (Patricia Arquette), Joey (Rodney Eastman), Taryn (Jennifer Rubin), Kincaid (Ken Sagoes), and Will (Ira Heiden) find their dream powers, so they can kill Freddy once and for all. Neil, unknowingly until the end, meets the spirit of Freddy's mother, Amanda Krueger (Nan Martin), who instructs him to bury Freddy's remains in hallowed ground in order to stop him for good. Neil completes his task, but not before Freddy kills Nancy.[8]

text: The story of Kristen Parker would continue with 1988's A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. This time, Kristen (Tuesday Knight) unwittingly releases Freddy, who immediately kills Kincaid and Joey. Before Freddy can kill Kristen, she transfers her dream powers to Alice (Lisa Wilcox), a friend from school. Alice begins inadvertently providing victims for Freddy when she begins pulling people into her dreams while she sleeps. Alice, who begins taking on traits of the friends who were murdered, confronts Freddy. She uses the power of the Dream Master to release all the souls Freddy has taken; they subsequently rip themselves from Freddy's body, killing him in the process.[9]

text: Picking up shortly after the events of The Dream Master, A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child involves Freddy using Alice's unborn child, Jacob (Whitby Hertford), to resurrect himself and find new victims. The spirit of Amanda Krueger (Beatrice Boepple) returns, revealing that Freddy was conceived when she, a nun working in a mental asylum, was accidentally locked in a room with "100 maniacs" and raped "hundreds of times". Amanda Krueger convinces Jacob to use the powers he was given by Freddy against him, which gives her the chance to subdue Freddy long enough for Alice and Jacob to escape the dream world.[10]

text: 1991's Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare followed the exploits of "John Doe" (Shon Greenblatt), an amnesiac teenager from Springwood, who was sent out to find Freddy's daughter Maggie (Lisa Zane), whom he needs to leave Springwood. Freddy's goal is to create new "Elm Streets", and begin a new killing spree after having killed all of the children in Springwood. Maggie, utilizing new dream techniques, uncovers Krueger's past, which include: being taunted by schoolmates for being the "son of 100 maniacs", being cruel to animals, beaten by his stepfather, the murder of his own wife when she discovers he has been killing children, and the moment when the Dream Demons arrive in his boiler room to make him the offer of eternal life. Eventually, Maggie pulls Freddy out of the dream world, and uses a pipe bomb to blow him up.[11]

text: Wes Craven returned to the Nightmare series a third time with New Nightmare in 1994. This film focuses on a fictional "reality", where Craven, Langenkamp, and Englund all play themselves, and where the character of Freddy Krueger is really an evil entity that has been trapped in the realm of fiction by all the movies that have been made. Since the movies have stopped, the entity, which likes being Freddy Krueger, is trying to escape into the real world. The only person in its way is Heather Langenkamp, whom the entity sees as "Nancy" – the first person who defeated him. Craven explains to Langenkamp the only way to keep the entity contained is for her to "play Nancy one last time". Langenkamp pursues "Krueger", who has kidnapped her son, into the dream world as "Nancy". There, she and her son trap Krueger in a furnace until he is finally destroyed.[12] In 2003, New Line pitted Friday the 13th's Jason Voorhees against Freddy Krueger. The film, Freddy vs. Jason, explains that Freddy Krueger has grown weak as people in Springwood, his home, have suppressed their fear of him. Freddy, who is impersonating Pamela Voorhees, the mother of Jason Voorhees, sends Jason (Ken Kirzinger) to Springwood to cause panic and fear. Jason accomplishes this, but refuses to stop killing. A battle ensues in both the dream world and Crystal Lake between the two villains. The winner is left ambiguous, as Jason surfaces from the lake holding Freddy's severed head, which winks and laughs.[13]

text: In 2010, a remake of the original Nightmare on Elm Street was released. Here, Freddy (Jackie Earle Haley) stalks the dreams of Nancy Holbrook (Rooney Mara) and her friends as they discover that they all share a common link from their childhood; they were all physically and sexually abused by Freddy before he was murdered by their vengeful parents. Now a supernatural force in their dreams, Freddy kills off the children that alerted the parents about his transgressions. Freddy slowly works his way to Nancy, his favorite of the children, and manipulates her into going without sleep long enough that her body falls into a coma, resulting in permanent sleep and life with Freddy forever. Nancy is awakened when her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) injects adrenaline into her and pulls Freddy out of the dreamworld, where she and Quentin kill him and burn the remains of his body.[14]

text: Development[edit]

text: The basis for the original Nightmare on Elm Street has been said to have been inspired by several newspaper articles printed in the LA Times in the 1970s on a group of Khmer refugees, who, after fleeing to America from the Khmer Rouge Genocide in Cambodia, were suffering disturbing nightmares after which they refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after. Medical authorities called the phenomenon "Asian Death Syndrome". The condition itself afflicted only men between the ages of 19-57 and is believed to be sudden unexplained death syndrome and/or Brugada syndrome.[15] The 1970s pop song "Dream Weaver" by Gary Wright sealed the story for Craven, giving him not only an artistic setting to "jump off" from, but a synthesizer riff from the Elm Street soundtrack as well.[16] It has also been stated that he drew some inspiration after studying eastern religions.[17]

text: Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually decided to characterize him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film.[18] By Craven's account, his own adolescent experiences led to the naming of Fred Krueger. He had been bullied at school by a child named Fred Krueger, and named his villain accordingly.[18] The colored sweater he chose for his villain was based on the DC Comics character Plastic Man, and Craven chose to make Krueger's sweater colors that of red and green, after reading an article in Scientific American in 1982 that said the two most clashing colors to the human retina were this particular combination.[19]

text: On January 29, 2008, Variety reported that Michael Bay and his Platinum Dunes production company would be rebooting the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise with a remake of the original 1984 film.[20] To provide a freshness to the character, producer Brad Fuller explained that they were abandoning the things that made the character less scary—Freddy would not be "cracking jokes" as had become a staple of his character in later sequels—and focus more on trying to craft a "horrifying movie".[21] There was not agreement among the original crew as to whether it would be a good idea to remake the film. Craven expressed his displeasure, primarily because the filmmakers chose not to have him as a consultant to the film, unlike with the 2009 remake The Last House on the Left where he "shepherd[ed] it towards production".[22] In contrast, Robert Englund felt it was time for A Nightmare on Elm Street to be remade. Englund liked the idea of being able to "exploit the dreamscape" with CGI and other technologies that did not exist when Craven was making the original Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984.[23]

text: Box office[edit]

text: When comparing A Nightmare on Elm Street with the other top-grossing horror franchises—Child's Play, Friday the 13th, Halloween, the Hannibal Lecter series, Psycho, Saw, Scream, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre—and adjusting for the 2010 inflation,[24] A Nightmare on Elm Street is the second highest grossing horror franchise, in the United States, at approximately $583.4 million.[2] The series is topped by Friday the 13th at $671.5 million.[25] Closely following A Nightmare on Elm Street is the Hannibal Lecter series with $579.4 million,[26] then Halloween with $547.8 million,[27] Saw with $404.5 million,[28] Scream with $398.3 million,[29] Psycho with $370.3 million,[30] The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with $314.6 million,[31] and the Child's Play film series rounding out the list with approximately $199.7 million.[32]

text:
Film
Release date (US)
Budget
Box office revenue
Reference

United States
Foreign
Worldwide

1. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
November 9, 1984 (1984-11-09)
$1,800,000[33]
$25,504,513
N/A
$25,504,513
[34]

2. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
November 1, 1985 (1985-11-01)
$3,000,000[35]
$29,999,213
N/A
$29,999,213
[36]

3. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors
February 27, 1987 (1987-02-27)
$5,000,000[37]
$44,793,222
N/A
$44,793,222
[38]

4. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master
August 19, 1988 (1988-08-19)
$13,000,000[39]
$49,369,899
N/A
$49,369,899
[40]

5. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child
August 11, 1989 (1989-08-11)
$6,000,000[41]
$22,168,359
N/A
$22,168,359
[42]

6. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare
September 13, 1991 (1991-09-13)
$5,000,000[43]
$34,872,033
N/A
$34,872,033
[44]

7. Wes Craven's New Nightmare
October 14, 1994 (1994-10-14)
$8,000,000[45]
$18,090,181
$1,631,560
$19,721,741
[46]

8. Freddy vs. Jason
August 15, 2003 (2003-08-15)
$25,000,000[47]
$82,622,655
$32,286,175
$114,908,830
[48]

9. A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
April 30, 2010 (2010-04-30)
$35,000,000[49]
$63,075,011
$52,589,026
$115,664,037
[50]

Total
$101,800,000
$370,495,086
$86,506,761
$457,001,847

text: Documentary[edit]

text: On May 4, 2010, a 4-hour documentary chronicling the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise was released. The documentary includes interviews with the cast and crew for all of the Nightmare films.[51] In a wish to utilize individuals who contributed to the franchise, the makers of the documentary procured poster artist Matthew Joseph Peak to create the artwork for the release poster and DVD cover, and composer Charles Bernstein for the film's main title music.[52][53] As part of a special offering, the filmmakers gave away a limited edition poster to anyone that ordered the documentary from the official website. Those same individuals would also be entered into a drawing to win one of three 27" × 40" teaser posters signed by dozens of people who worked on the films and were interviewed in the documentary.[54] Michael Gingold of Fangoria felt the filmmakers did an amazing job bringing together all of the behind-the-scenes footage, picture, never-before-seen deleted scenes, FX scenes, and other "treasures". Gingold noted that even die-hard fans would find something new.[55] Bloody Disgusting's Ryan Daley praised the film for being educational, and looking at the legacy of both A Nightmare on Elm Street and New Line Cinema. Daley believed that there was no better horror documentary.[56] Nick Hyman of Under the Radar noted that Never Sleep Again, unlike the earlier His Name Was Jason documentary, provided a more candid interview process with the people involved. Hyman pointed out that the best part of the documentary is the look at New Line's success through the Elm Street franchise, and the financial struggles and deadlines that plagued the film series.[57]

text: Television[edit]

text: Beginning on October 9, 1988, Freddy's Nightmares was an anthology series, in the vein of The Twilight Zone, which featured different horror stories each week. The show was hosted by Freddy Krueger, with Robert Englund reprising his role from the films. Freddy played more of a background character, but occasionally showed up to influence the plot of particular episodes. The series ran for two seasons and a total of 44 episodes, ending March 10, 1990.[58] Although most of the episodes did not feature Freddy taking a major role in the plot, the pilot episode "No More Mr. Nice Guy" depicts the events of Krueger's trial, and his subsequent death at the hands of the parents of Elm Street after his acquittal. Directed by Tobe Hooper, creator of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Freddy's acquittal is based on the arresting officer, Lt. Tim Blocker, not reading him his Miranda rights, which is different from the original Nightmare that stated he was acquitted because someone forgot to sign a search warrant. After the town's parents burn Freddy to death he returns to haunt Blocker in his dreams. Freddy gets his revenge when Blocker is put to sleep at the dentist's office, and Freddy shows up and kills him.[59]

text: Literature[edit]

text: Since his inception in 1984, Freddy Krueger has appeared in multiple works of literature, including countless behind-the-scenes compilations, short stories, novels (including novelizations) and comics.

text: Novels[edit]

text: Between 1987 and 2003, Freddy Krueger appeared in the novelization of each of the films. The first five films were adapted by St. Martin's Press. Those adaptations follow the films closely, with minor changes to specific details that occurred in the film. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 does not follow the respective film, instead utilizing the same plot elements to tell a different story altogether. This novel also provides a different backstory for Freddy.[60][61] In 1992, Abdo & Daughters Publishing Company released adaptations of their own for the first six films. Written by Bob Italia, each was under one hundred pages and followed the films' plot.[62][63][64][65][66][67] The final two books, Wes Craven's New Nightmare and Freddy vs. Jason, were published by Tor Books and Black Flame. These novels also followed the films closely, with the adaptation of Freddy vs. Jason containing a different ending than the movie.[68][69]

text: Comic books[edit]

text: The popularity of the film series also led to the creation of several comic book series published by companies such as Marvel Comics, Innovation Comics, Trident Comics, Avatar Press and, most recently, WildStorm Comics. Writers such as Steve Gerber, Andy Mangels, Chuck Dixon and Brian Pulido have all contributed stories to the various series. There have been crossovers with other franchises, such as Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash: The Nightmare Warriors.

text: Merchandise[edit]

text: In February 2010, Funko released a Freddy Bobblehead.[70] Also in 2010, NECA released a 10" puppet of Freddy Krueger from Phillip's death scene in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors,[71] a metal replica of his glove, and two action figures: Freddy before he was burned and the other being him after the burning, including two interchangeable heads.[72]

text: Video games[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: A Nightmare on Elm Street is the shared name of two unrelated video games released in 1989, both loosely based on the series. From among those films, Dream Warriors and The Dream Master were particular influences on the gameplay of each.

text: LJN (programmed by Rare) released one title for the NES, and Monarch Software the other for the Commodore 64 and IBM PC compatibles.

text: Up to four players control characters who jump and punch their way through Elm Street locations as they collect the bones of Freddy Krueger to place them in a furnace and end his reign of terror. Each character can withstand only four hits from opponents before losing a life.

text: An on-screen meter slowly diminishes (more quickly when sustaining damage), representing how close a particular character is to falling asleep. Obtaining cups of coffee within the game restores characters' sleep bar. When any character's sleep bar empties, all the players are transported to the dream world, where enemies take on new appearances and are more difficult to defeat. In the dream world, coffee cups are replaced with radios, which return the characters to the normal world and difficulty.

text: Also, Dream Warrior icons appear that, once collected by any player, permit transformation into one of three "Dream Warriors". Each warrior has a projectile attack and improved movement: ninja (throwing stars, jump kick), acrobat (javelins, somersault), and magician (fireballs, hovering). These icons appear only in the normal world, and can be used only in the dream. If a character remains asleep too long, the film's theme song plays and a combative encounter with Freddy ensues.

text: Upon collecting all the bones in a level, the player is automatically put in the dream world and battles Freddy, who takes on a special form similar to those presented in the films. The final level is set at Elm Street High School as players navigate to the boiler room to burn Freddy's bones. Here one final battle with Freddy Krueger occurs.

text: The game can utilize the NES Four Score or NES Satellite accessories to enable four-player gameplay.

text: The game produced by Monarch Software differs greatly from that for the NES. Developed by Westwood Associates, its role-playing elements and overhead viewpoint bear some similarity to Gauntlet. The player chooses to play as either Kincaid, Kristen, Will, Nancy, or Taryn on a quest to save Joey and defeat Freddy.

text: The player must locate keys to open doors. Weapons and items are scattered about the levels or can be purchased from vending machines. Enemies are varied, from skeletons to wheelchairs. Freddy assumes the role of "boss monster" and transforms into a snake, much like his appearance in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors.

text: In October 2017, Freddy Krueger and Quentin Smith were released as downloadable characters for the Nightmare On Elm Street chapter of the asymmetric survival horror game Dead by Daylight.[73]


document_title: California locations by crime rate

question_text: which city in california has the highest crime rate

root

text: California locations by crime rate

text: Entire state[edit]

text: The following table includes the number of incidents reported and the rate per 1,000 persons for each type of offense.

tag: p

text:
Population[1]
38,802,500

Violent crime[1]
153,709
3.96

  Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter[1]
1,699
0.04

  Rape[1][note 1]
11,527
0.30

  Robbery[1]
48,680
1.26

  Aggravated assault[1]
91,803
2.37

Property crime[1]
947,192
24.41

  Burglary[1]
202,670
5.22

  Larceny-theft[1]
592,670
15.27

  Motor vehicle theft[1]
151,852
3.91

tag: table

text: Counties[edit]

text: There is little correlation between crime rates and population for counties in California. However, there is a moderate to strong correlation between crime rates and population densities at the county level. The median county in California has violent and property crime rates roughly the same as California's.

text: San Bernardino County also has violent and property crime rates similar to that of the state.

text:
County
Population[2]
Population
density[2][3][note 2]
Violent crimes[4]
Violent crime rate
per 1,000 persons
Property crimes[4]
Property crime rate
per 1,000 persons

Alameda
1,559,308
2,109.8
10,356
6.6
57,620
37.0

Alpine
1,202
1.6
4
3.3
24
20.0

Amador
37,159
62.5
81
2.2
629
16.9

Butte
221,578
135.4
678
3.1
6,631
29.9

Calaveras
44,921
44.0
113
2.5
989
22.0

Colusa
21,424
18.6
40
1.9
350
16.3

Contra Costa
1,081,232
1,496.0
3,650
3.4
32,232
29.8

Del Norte
28,066
27.9
165
5.9
649
23.1

El Dorado
181,465
106.3
409
2.3
3,138
17.3

Fresno
948,844
159.2
4,547
4.8
32,535
34.3

Glenn
28,019
21.3
125
4.5
527
18.8

Humboldt
134,876
37.8
485
3.6
4,787
35.5

Imperial
177,026
42.4
583
3.3
5,536
31.3

Inyo
18,439
1.8
106
5.7
303
16.4

Kern
857,730
105.5
4,465
5.2
28,283
33.0

Kings
151,390
109.0
696
4.6
3,475
23.0

Lake
64,209
51.1
307
4.8
1,832
28.5

Lassen
33,356
7.3
140
4.2
521
15.6

Los Angeles
9,974,203
2,457.9
42,725
4.3
217,493
21.8

Madera
152,452
71.3
888
5.8
3,380
22.2

Marin
256,802
493.4
454
1.8
4,565
17.8

Mariposa
17,946
12.4
71
4.0
276
15.4

Mendocino
87,612
25.0
512
5.8
1,546
17.6

Merced
261,609
135.2
1,485
5.7
7,126
27.2

Modoc
9,335
2.4
49
5.2
166
17.8

Mono
14,193
4.7
36
2.5
184
13.0

Monterey
424,927
129.5
1,833
4.3
10,577
24.9

Napa
139,253
186.1
534
3.8
2,385
17.1

Nevada
98,606
103.0
308
3.1
1,591
16.1

Orange
3,086,331
3,903.6
6,257
2.0
54,754
17.7

Placer
361,518
256.9
596
1.6
6,643
18.4

Plumas
19,286
7.6
91
4.7
312
16.2

Riverside
2,266,899
314.6
6,260
2.8
61,434
27.1

Sacramento
1,450,277
1,503.0
7,452
5.1
40,246
27.8

San Benito
56,888
41.0
196
3.4
736
12.9

San Bernardino
2,078,586
103.6
8,281
4.0
54,778
26.4

San Diego
3,183,143
756.7
10,585
3.3
59,050
18.6

San Francisco
829,072
17,680.1
6,822
8.2
45,936
55.4

San Joaquin
701,050
503.9
5,346
7.6
25,092
35.8

San Luis Obispo
274,184
83.1
1,177
4.3
5,683
20.7

San Mateo
739,837
1,649.7
1,561
2.1
14,186
19.2

Santa Barbara
431,555
157.8
1,294
3.0
9,088
21.1

Santa Clara
1,841,569
1,427.3
4,676
2.5
43,084
23.4

Santa Cruz
267,203
600.2
1,139
4.3
8,121
30.4

Shasta
178,520
47.3
1,275
7.1
5,705
32.0

Sierra
3,019
3.2
11
3.6
29
9.6

Siskiyou
44,261
7.1
137
3.1
724
16.4

Solano
421,624
513.1
2,109
5.0
13,453
31.9

Sonoma
491,790
312.1
1,821
3.7
8,583
17.5

Stanislaus
522,794
349.8
2,826
5.4
18,559
35.5

Sutter
95,067
157.8
316
3.3
2,364
24.9

Tehama
63,284
21.5
321
5.1
1,589
25.1

Trinity
13,515
4.3
34
2.5
174
12.9

Tulare
451,108
93.5
1,903
4.2
11,398
25.3

Tuolumne
54,347
24.5
151
2.8
1,157
21.3

Ventura
835,790
453.5
1,890
2.3
16,812
20.1

Yolo
204,162
201.2
757
3.7
5,507
27.0

Yuba
73,059
115.6
296
4.1
2,135
29.2

text: Cities and other agencies[edit]

text: There's hardly any correlation between crime rates and population or population density whatsoever for cities in California.

text: The median city had crime rates slightly lower than that of the state, with a violent crime rate of 2.74 and a property crime rate of 21.66. The fact that the average city had crime rates similar to the state in contrast to the lower median rates indicates the presence of outliers with high crime rates. Indeed, the 66th percentile for violent crime rates was 3.69 crimes per 1,000 people, still not as high as the average crime rate among cities (the 33rd percentile was 1.81).

text: Irvine ranks second with regard to lowest violent crime rates among places with a population of 50,000 or more even though it has a population roughly five times that. Its violent crime rate is 0.49 per 1,000 people. Joining Irvine among the top five in that population class are San Ramon (0.31), Murrieta (0.63), Cupertino (0.66), and Yorba Linda (0.66). Change the focus to property crime and Orange County cities with a population not much higher than 50,000 dominate the top ten, with seven of the ten places ranking in the top ten being located in Orange County, including (in ascending order of violent crime rate) Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, and Yorba Linda.

text: Of the ten places with populations over 50,000 and the highest violent crime rates, only two had populations under 100,000: they are Santa Cruz (8.26) and Compton (11.49). The other places include (in descending order of violent crime rate) Oakland, Stockton, San Bernardino, Vallejo, and San Francisco.

text:
City/Agency
County
Population[5]
Population
density[5][3][note 2]
Violent crimes[5]
Violent crime rate
per 1,000 persons
Property crimes[5]
Property crime rate
per 1,000 persons

Adelanto
San Bernardino
31,213
557.3
189
6.06
790
25.31

Agoura Hills
Los Angeles
20,767
2,664.8
17
0.82
234
11.27

Alameda
Alameda
77,048
7,378.7
145
1.88
1,723
22.36

Albany
Alameda
19,350
10,822.1
31
1.6
478
24.7

Alhambra
Los Angeles
84,931
11,129.7
168
1.98
1,743
20.52

Aliso Viejo
Orange
50,671
7,323.5
35
0.69
273
5.39

Alturas
Modoc
2,615
1,073.9
29
11.09
89
34.03

American Canyon
Napa
20,379
3,351.3
55
2.7
568
27.87

Anaheim
Orange
346,956
6,942.3
1,101
3.17
8,196
23.62

Anderson
Shasta
10,176
1,597.0
96
9.43
617
60.63

Angels
Calaveras
3,716
1,024.3
7
1.88
48
12.92

Antioch
Contra Costa
108,223
3,820.1
849
7.84
4,190
38.72

Apple Valley
San Bernardino
71,329
958.2
212
2.97
1,654
23.19

Arcadia
Los Angeles
57,950
5,304.3
60
1.04
1,159
20.0

Arcata
Humboldt
17,748
1,952.0
78
4.39
702
39.55

Arroyo Grande
San Luis Obispo
17,829
3,056.6
52
2.92
356
19.97

Artesia
Los Angeles
16,788
10,356.6
49
2.92
294
17.51

Arvin
Kern
20,541
4,262.5
177
8.62
483
23.51

Atascadero
San Luis Obispo
29,268
1,138.3
72
2.46
448
15.31

Atherton
San Mateo
7,221
1,435.9
3
0.42
75
10.39

Atwater
Merced
28,961
4,736.8
182
6.28
1,024
35.36

Auburn
Placer
14,042
1,962.8
44
3.13
295
21.01

Avalon
Los Angeles
3,784
1,289.3
20
5.29
89
23.52

Avenal
Kings
13,914
716.4
18
1.29
154
11.07

Azusa
Los Angeles
48,224
4,994.2
165
3.42
1,065
22.08

Bakersfield
Kern
367,406
2,473.3
1,678
4.57
14,595
39.72

Baldwin Park
Los Angeles
76,933
11,602.0
219
2.85
1,342
17.44

Banning
Riverside
30,699
1,329.0
128
4.17
619
20.16

Barstow
San Bernardino
23,349
564.8
217
9.29
781
33.45

Beaumont
Riverside
41,323
1,334.4
71
1.72
974
23.57

Bell
Los Angeles
36,059
14,417.8
217
6.02
718
19.91

Bellflower
Los Angeles
77,830
12,721.5
293
3.76
1,623
20.85

Bell Gardens
Los Angeles
43,089
17,523.0
108
2.51
710
16.48

Belmont
San Mateo
26,947
5,826.4
36
1.34
372
13.8

Belvedere
Marin
2,135
4,113.7
1
0.47
36
16.86

Benicia
Solano
27,766
2,147.6
26
0.94
484
17.43

Berkeley
Alameda
117,753
11,251.0
431
3.66
5,102
43.33

Beverly Hills
Los Angeles
34,788
6,094.6
111
3.19
1,071
30.79

Big Bear Lake
San Bernardino
5,148
811.1
44
8.55
262
50.89

Biggs
Butte
1,701
2,674.5
17
9.99
22
12.93

Bishop
Inyo
3,860
2,070.8
27
6.99
128
33.16

Blythe
Riverside
19,669
751.0
88
4.47
748
38.03

Bradbury
Los Angeles
1,084
553.9
2
1.85
9
8.3

Brawley
Imperial
25,695
3,344.8
69
2.69
1,020
39.7

Brea
Orange
41,359
3,392.0
53
1.28
1,124
27.18

Brentwood
Contra Costa
55,826
3,759.1
102
1.83
1,250
22.39

Brisbane
San Mateo
4,482
1,447.7
11
2.45
133
29.67

Broadmoor
San Mateo
4,343
9,629.7
10
2.3
48
11.05

Buellton
Santa Barbara
4,997
3,158.7
6
1.2
71
14.21

Buena Park
Orange
83,414
7,926.1
217
2.6
2,030
24.34

Burbank
Los Angeles
105,041
6,057.4
150
1.43
2,426
23.1

Burlingame
San Mateo
30,161
6,847.0
47
1.56
750
24.87

Calabasas
Los Angeles
24,325
1,774.8
19
0.78
252
10.36

Calexico
Imperial
39,572
4,584.3
96
2.43
1,630
41.19

California City
Kern
13,168
64.7
79
6.0
481
36.53

Calimesa
Riverside
8,238
554.9
17
2.06
259
31.44

Calistoga
Napa
5,277
2,031.2
3
0.57
73
13.83

Camarillo
Ventura
66,272
3,393.0
72
1.09
965
14.56

Campbell
Santa Clara
40,872
7,042.0
81
1.98
1,388
33.96

Canyon Lake
Riverside
10,987
2,809.3
13
1.18
128
11.65

Capitola
Santa Cruz
10,134
6,361.6
30
2.96
627
61.87

Carlsbad
San Diego
112,297
2,976.6
204
1.82
1,731
15.41

Carmel-by-the-Sea
Monterey
3,871
3,584.3
13
3.36
104
26.87

Carpinteria
Santa Barbara
13,654
5,280.0
19
1.39
197
14.43

Carson
Los Angeles
92,838
4,958.5
339
3.65
2,116
22.79

Cathedral City
Riverside
53,368
2,482.2
128
2.4
1,194
22.37

Ceres
Stanislaus
46,903
5,028.2
145
3.09
1,584
33.77

Cerritos
Los Angeles
49,867
5,717.4
86
1.72
1,525
30.58

Chico
Butte
88,562
2,690.1
340
3.84
3,213
36.28

Chino
San Bernardino
81,600
2,750.8
186
2.28
1,816
22.25

Chino Hills
San Bernardino
76,972
1,722.5
61
0.79
1,030
13.38

Chowchilla
Madera
17,079
1,533.5
89
5.21
332
19.44

Chula Vista
San Diego
259,894
5,236.5
612
2.35
4,524
17.41

Citrus Heights
Sacramento
85,758
6,027.0
389
4.54
2,691
31.38

Claremont
Los Angeles
36,042
2,699.8
39
1.08
853
23.67

Clayton
Contra Costa
11,646
3,032.8
4
0.34
111
9.53

Clearlake
Lake
14,914
1,472.4
97
6.5
681
45.66

Cloverdale
Sonoma
8,766
2,887.4
15
1.71
171
19.51

Clovis
Fresno
100,705
4,291.3
216
2.14
3,064
30.43

Coachella
Riverside
43,633
1,507.2
166
3.8
1,152
26.4

Coalinga
Fresno
16,445
2,463.3
121
7.36
315
19.15

Colma
San Mateo
1,503
789.0
12
7.98
271
180.31

Colton
San Bernardino
53,485
3,490.3
137
2.56
1,575
29.45

Colusa
Colusa
5,942
3,239.9
9
1.51
105
17.67

Commerce
Los Angeles
13,033
1,993.4
77
5.91
965
74.04

Compton
Los Angeles
98,224
9,810.6
1,129
11.49
2,619
26.66

Concord
Contra Costa
126,744
4,149.6
465
3.67
5,196
41.0

Corcoran
Kings
23,057
3,072.6
86
3.73
292
12.66

Corning
Tehama
7,569
2,132.1
35
4.62
309
40.82

Corona
Riverside
161,128
4,148.9
171
1.06
3,440
21.35

Coronado
San Diego
23,385
2,948.6
17
0.73
545
23.31

Costa Mesa
Orange
112,709
7,178.9
318
2.82
3,462
30.72

Cotati
Sonoma
7,424
3,948.9
33
4.45
70
9.43

Covina
Los Angeles
48,681
6,926.7
110
2.26
1,108
22.76

Crescent City
Del Norte
7,090
3,611.8
63
8.89
191
26.94

Cudahy
Los Angeles
24,175
20,574.5
81
3.35
332
13.73

Culver City
Los Angeles
39,561
7,740.4
169
4.27
1,693
42.79

Cupertino
Santa Clara
60,564
5,354.4
40
0.66
1,026
16.94

Cypress
Orange
49,370
7,467.9
51
1.03
752
15.23

Daly City
San Mateo
105,628
13,825.7
194
1.84
1,685
15.95

Dana Point
Orange
34,244
5,269.1
71
2.07
463
13.52

Danville
Contra Costa
43,685
2,416.6
17
0.39
439
10.05

Davis
Yolo
66,360
6,714.6
84
1.27
1,455
21.93

Delano
Kern
52,224
3,651.3
215
4.12
1,486
28.45

Del Mar
San Diego
4,305
2,522.0
18
4.18
137
31.82

Del Rey Oaks
Monterey
1,683
3,506.2
1
0.59
52
30.9

Desert Hot Springs
Riverside
28,086
930.0
168
5.98
1,160
41.3

Diamond Bar
Los Angeles
56,665
3,808.4
49
0.86
722
12.74

Dinuba
Tulare
23,815
3,680.8
187
7.85
933
39.18

Dixon
Solano
19,103
2,680.0
53
2.77
428
22.4

Dorris
Siskiyou
899
1,280.6
5
5.56
13
14.46

Dos Palos
Merced
5,081
3,766.5
51
10.04
155
30.51

Downey
Los Angeles
113,595
9,155.0
281
2.47
2,897
25.5

Duarte
Los Angeles
21,817
3,261.1
54
2.48
352
16.13

Dublin
Alameda
53,795
3,531.5
70
1.3
798
14.83

Dunsmuir
Siskiyou
1,569
978.2
5
3.19
17
10.83

East Palo Alto
San Mateo
29,377
11,722.7
124
4.22
574
19.54

Eastvale
Riverside
55,504
4,383.2
59
1.06
929
16.74

El Cajon
San Diego
102,838
7,103.1
327
3.18
2,252
21.9

El Centro
Imperial
43,532
3,927.5
167
3.84
2,095
48.13

El Cerrito
Contra Costa
24,485
6,695.4
77
3.14
926
37.82

Elk Grove
Sacramento
162,957
3,862.2
622
3.82
3,072
18.85

El Monte
Los Angeles
116,220
12,154.4
333
2.87
2,213
19.04

El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles)
San Luis Obispo
31,117
1,625.2
125
4.02
788
25.32

El Segundo
Los Angeles
16,990
3,110.0
48
2.83
538
31.67

Emeryville
Alameda
10,972
8,565.2
117
10.66
1,603
146.1

Encinitas
San Diego
62,071
3,299.5
104
1.68
908
14.63

Escalon
San Joaquin
7,281
3,164.3
10
1.37
171
23.49

Escondido
San Diego
149,839
4,043.3
512
3.42
3,026
20.2

Etna
Siskiyou
715
940.8
0
0.0
1
1.4

Eureka
Humboldt
26,843
2,860.5
145
5.4
2,176
81.06

Exeter
Tulare
10,524
4,272.8
47
4.47
305
28.98

Fairfax
Marin
7,647
3,469.6
16
2.09
104
13.6

Fairfield
Solano
110,300
2,950.1
519
4.71
3,873
35.11

Farmersville
Tulare
10,752
4,761.7
52
4.84
165
15.35

Ferndale
Humboldt
1,360
1,324.2
3
2.21
17
12.5

Fillmore
Ventura
15,311
4,551.4
46
3.0
122
7.97

Firebaugh
Fresno
8,238
2,343.7
75
9.1
299
36.3

Folsom
Sacramento
73,329
3,341.2
79
1.08
1,305
17.8

Fontana
San Bernardino
204,532
4,820.5
710
3.47
3,710
18.14

Fort Bragg
Mendocino
7,245
2,635.5
27
3.73
256
35.33

Fort Jones
Siskiyou
681
1,131.2
0
0.0
16
23.49

Fortuna
Humboldt
11,752
2,425.6
33
2.81
496
42.21

Foster City
San Mateo
32,836
8,650.2
14
0.43
366
11.15

Fountain Valley
Orange
57,024
6,285.7
86
1.51
1,023
17.94

Fowler
Fresno
6,032
2,372.9
49
8.12
158
26.19

Fremont
Alameda
227,575
2,937.8
284
1.25
3,910
17.18

Fresno
Fresno
513,187
4,532.5
2,382
4.64
21,101
41.12

Fullerton
Orange
139,895
6,236.1
339
2.42
3,206
22.92

Galt
Sacramento
24,671
4,115.3
70
2.84
574
23.27

Gardena
Los Angeles
60,233
10,333.3
276
4.58
1,389
23.06

Garden Grove
Orange
176,106
9,807.1
406
2.31
3,098
17.59

Gilroy
Santa Clara
52,415
3,247.1
197
3.76
1,486
28.35

Glendale
Los Angeles
197,079
6,473.5
186
0.94
3,073
15.59

Glendora
Los Angeles
51,292
2,644.1
66
1.29
1,241
24.19

Goleta
Santa Barbara
30,669
3,906.4
35
1.14
422
13.76

Gonzales
Monterey
8,459
4,412.6
37
4.37
86
10.17

Grand Terrace
San Bernardino
12,405
3,542.3
18
1.45
248
19.99

Grass Valley
Nevada
12,777
2,693.9
109
8.53
676
52.91

Greenfield
Monterey
16,986
7,956.0
91
5.36
319
18.78

Gridley
Butte
6,558
3,168.1
88
13.42
167
25.47

Grover Beach
San Luis Obispo
13,497
5,842.9
52
3.85
324
24.01

Guadalupe
Santa Barbara
7,260
5,546.2
10
1.38
68
9.37

Gustine
Merced
5,667
3,653.8
34
6.0
161
28.41

Hanford
Kings
54,824
3,262.6
305
5.56
1,857
33.87

Hawaiian Gardens
Los Angeles
14,490
15,284.8
55
3.8
183
12.63

Hawthorne
Los Angeles
86,670
14,252.6
658
7.59
2,588
29.86

Hayward
Alameda
153,319
3,375.6
605
3.95
4,873
31.78

Healdsburg
Sonoma
11,569
2,595.7
19
1.64
238
20.57

Hemet
Riverside
82,412
2,959.5
430
5.22
3,357
40.73

Hercules
Contra Costa
25,026
3,903.0
27
1.08
286
11.43

Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles
19,873
13,926.4
37
1.86
543
27.32

Hesperia
San Bernardino
92,592
1,266.7
296
3.2
2,303
24.87

Hidden Hills
Los Angeles
1,915
1,133.8
0
0.0
12
6.27

Highland
San Bernardino
54,559
2,909.0
256
4.69
1,309
23.99

Hillsborough
San Mateo
11,382
1,838.8
1
0.09
103
9.05

Hollister
San Benito
36,967
5,047.4
136
3.68
498
13.47

Holtville
Imperial
6,030
5,252.6
24
3.98
86
14.26

Hughson
Stanislaus
7,089
3,587.6
11
1.55
143
20.17

Huntington Beach
Orange
199,152
7,394.1
391
1.96
4,238
21.28

Huntington Park
Los Angeles
59,064
19,603.1
409
6.92
1,806
30.58

Huron
Fresno
6,792
4,269.0
72
10.6
145
21.35

Imperial
Imperial
16,535
2,823.6
5
0.3
46
2.78

Imperial Beach
San Diego
27,234
6,545.1
112
4.11
416
15.28

Indian Wells
Riverside
5,211
363.8
6
1.15
120
23.03

Indio
Riverside
84,540
2,757.6
466
5.51
2,210
26.14

Industry
Los Angeles
205
17.4
72
351.22
1,047
5,107.32

Inglewood
Los Angeles
111,997
12,350.8
783
6.99
2,740
24.46

Ione
Amador
6,773
1,474.0
6
0.89
60
8.86

Irvine
Orange
242,971
3,705.5
120
0.49
3,045
12.53

Irwindale
Los Angeles
1,426
161.6
18
12.62
169
118.51

Isleton
Sacramento
825
1,875.0
2
2.42
23
27.88

Jackson
Amador
4,534
1,215.5
17
3.75
113
24.92

Jurupa Valley
Riverside
98,684
2,298.7
287
2.91
2,586
26.2

Kensington
Contra Costa
5,281
5,576.6
2
0.38
46
8.71

Kerman
Fresno
14,538
4,496.8
38
2.61
458
31.5

King City
Monterey
13,336
3,468.4
55
4.12
243
18.22

Kingsburg
Fresno
11,762
4,165.0
34
2.89
318
27.04

La Cañada Flintridge
Los Angeles
20,627
2,390.7
18
0.87
306
14.83

Lafayette
Contra Costa
25,355
1,685.1
17
0.67
439
17.31

Laguna Beach
Orange
23,371
2,627.7
64
2.74
462
19.77

Laguna Hills
Orange
31,035
4,701.6
45
1.45
441
14.21

Laguna Niguel
Orange
65,033
4,411.7
73
1.12
554
8.52

Laguna Woods
Orange
16,480
4,926.8
6
0.36
118
7.16

La Habra
Orange
61,964
8,425.9
105
1.69
1,049
16.93

La Habra Heights
Los Angeles
5,451
885.0
8
1.47
49
8.99

Lake Elsinore
Riverside
58,665
1,529.8
128
2.18
1,662
28.33

Lake Forest
Orange
79,748
4,793.7
104
1.3
682
8.55

Lakeport
Lake
4,763
1,557.6
17
3.57
335
70.33

Lakewood
Los Angeles
81,382
8,640.2
202
2.48
1,737
21.34

La Mesa
San Diego
59,005
6,499.1
208
3.53
1,584
26.85

La Mirada
Los Angeles
49,277
6,299.8
89
1.81
635
12.89

Lancaster
Los Angeles
160,190
1,698.8
891
5.56
3,661
22.85

La Palma
Orange
15,977
8,960.7
12
0.75
247
15.46

La Puente
Los Angeles
40,583
11,665.1
136
3.35
440
10.84

La Quinta
Riverside
39,753
1,131.5
87
2.19
1,324
33.31

La Verne
Los Angeles
32,067
3,803.9
46
1.43
820
25.57

Lawndale
Los Angeles
33,340
16,889.6
157
4.71
398
11.94

Lemon Grove
San Diego
26,332
6,788.3
125
4.75
516
19.6

Lemoore
Kings
25,080
2,944.7
119
4.74
660
26.32

Lincoln
Placer
45,792
2,279.0
17
0.37
463
10.11

Lindsay
Tulare
13,300
5,095.8
41
3.08
243
18.27

Livermore
Alameda
86,147
3,206.5
236
2.74
1,501
17.42

Livingston
Merced
13,690
3,723.1
50
3.65
245
17.9

Lodi
San Joaquin
63,601
4,652.3
290
4.56
2,095
32.94

Loma Linda
San Bernardino
23,798
3,166.3
41
1.72
689
28.95

Lomita
Los Angeles
20,677
10,820.0
77
3.72
355
17.17

Lompoc
Santa Barbara
43,809
3,778.6
153
3.49
854
19.49

Long Beach
Los Angeles
471,123
9,366.1
2,304
4.89
12,438
26.4

Los Alamitos
Orange
11,708
2,911.0
16
1.37
204
17.42

Los Altos
Santa Clara
30,256
4,673.5
7
0.23
322
10.64

Los Altos Hills
Santa Clara
8,408
942.2
2
0.24
73
8.68

Los Angeles
Los Angeles
3,906,772
8,335.9
19,171
4.91
83,139
21.28

Los Banos
Merced
37,011
3,703.7
133
3.59
900
24.32

Los Gatos
Santa Clara
30,614
2,741.7
23
0.75
616
20.12

Lynwood
Los Angeles
71,812
14,837.2
401
5.58
1,424
19.83

McFarland
Kern
12,346
4,627.4
65
5.26
230
18.63

Madera
Madera
63,495
4,021.5
415
6.54
1,686
26.55

Malibu
Los Angeles
12,912
652.5
25
1.94
312
24.16

Mammoth Lakes
Mono
8,033
323.1
28
3.49
111
13.82

Manhattan Beach
Los Angeles
35,872
9,111.5
37
1.03
878
24.48

Manteca
San Joaquin
73,055
3,555.5
176
2.41
2,100
28.75

Marina
Monterey
20,530
2,311.2
58
2.83
463
22.55

Martinez
Contra Costa
37,416
2,962.2
73
1.95
974
26.03

Marysville
Yuba
12,242
3,534.1
86
7.02
507
41.41

Maywood
Los Angeles
27,833
23,627.3
88
3.16
250
8.98

Mendota
Fresno
11,480
3,483.0
72
6.27
287
25.0

Menifee
Riverside
84,843
1,825.7
107
1.26
1,501
17.69

Menlo Park
San Mateo
33,321
3,408.8
52
1.56
565
16.96

Merced
Merced
81,603
3,513.4
570
6.99
2,632
32.25

Mill Valley
Marin
14,411
3,025.6
11
0.76
188
13.05

Milpitas
Santa Clara
70,568
5,196.1
112
1.59
2,131
30.2

Mission Viejo
Orange
97,124
5,510.0
71
0.73
864
8.9

Modesto
Stanislaus
205,820
4,616.1
1,778
8.64
9,113
44.28

Monrovia
Los Angeles
37,225
2,736.1
47
1.26
718
19.29

Montague
Siskiyou
1,398
786.3
2
1.43
13
9.3

Montclair
San Bernardino
38,347
6,950.7
210
5.48
1,506
39.27

Montebello
Los Angeles
63,737
7,648.7
134
2.1
1,449
22.73

Monterey
Monterey
28,512
3,280.3
115
4.03
1,022
35.84

Monterey Park
Los Angeles
61,284
7,992.2
91
1.48
1,039
16.95

Monte Sereno
Santa Clara
3,511
2,147.4
0
0.0
30
8.54

Moorpark
Ventura
35,299
2,806.2
39
1.1
277
7.85

Moraga
Contra Costa
16,953
1,791.1
8
0.47
150
8.85

Moreno Valley
Riverside
202,911
3,957.3
584
2.88
6,410
31.59

Morgan Hill
Santa Clara
41,585
3,261.8
65
1.56
612
14.72

Morro Bay
San Luis Obispo
10,516
1,983.0
50
4.75
234
22.25

Mountain View
Santa Clara
78,759
6,567.1
156
1.98
1,608
20.42

Mount Shasta
Siskiyou
3,267
867.5
6
1.84
62
18.98

Murrieta
Riverside
108,376
3,227.3
68
0.63
1,458
13.45

Napa
Napa
79,572
4,456.6
249
3.13
1,315
16.53

National City
San Diego
60,130
8,260.8
267
4.44
1,589
26.43

Needles
San Bernardino
4,944
160.4
25
5.06
164
33.17

Nevada City
Nevada
3,055
1,396.3
36
11.78
95
31.1

Newark
Alameda
44,467
3,204.8
109
2.45
971
21.84

Newman
Stanislaus
10,742
5,333.7
25
2.33
157
14.62

Newport Beach
Orange
87,759
3,690.8
109
1.24
1,880
21.42

Norco
Riverside
26,933
1,954.9
46
1.71
642
23.84

Norwalk
Los Angeles
106,838
11,004.0
316
2.96
2,001
18.73

Novato
Marin
54,756
1,995.3
80
1.46
770
14.06

Oakdale
Stanislaus
21,651
3,581.6
43
1.99
822
37.97

Oakland
Alameda
409,994
7,335.3
6,910
16.85
24,367
59.43

Oakley
Contra Costa
38,851
2,447.6
45
1.16
469
12.07

Oceanside
San Diego
174,102
4,220.4
652
3.74
3,984
22.88

Ojai
Ventura
7,607
1,749.5
10
1.31
120
15.77

Ontario
San Bernardino
168,278
3,370.0
431
2.56
4,654
27.66

Orange
Orange
140,767
5,551.2
142
1.01
2,241
15.92

Orange Cove
Fresno
9,704
5,415.2
10
1.03
151
15.56

Orinda
Contra Costa
18,904
1,470.8
4
0.21
187
9.89

Orland
Glenn
7,511
2,577.6
20
2.66
123
16.38

Oroville
Butte
16,090
1,215.5
91
5.66
994
61.78

Oxnard
Ventura
204,159
7,589.3
884
4.33
6,382
31.26

Pacifica
San Mateo
38,925
3,074.2
91
2.34
638
16.39

Pacific Grove
Monterey
15,612
5,462.6
30
1.92
301
19.28

Palmdale
Los Angeles
158,210
1,493.0
840
5.31
3,219
20.35

Palm Desert
Riverside
50,971
1,901.3
140
2.75
2,178
42.73

Palm Springs
Riverside
46,665
496.2
295
6.32
2,722
58.33

Palo Alto
Santa Clara
67,169
2,813.6
59
0.88
1,299
19.34

Palos Verdes Estates
Los Angeles
13,668
2,863.0
5
0.37
121
8.85

Paradise
Butte
26,306
1,436.1
52
1.98
516
19.62

Paramount
Los Angeles
55,194
11,668.9
239
4.33
1,408
25.51

Parlier
Fresno
14,948
6,538.9
116
7.76
234
15.65

Pasadena
Los Angeles
140,373
6,107.7
394
2.81
3,469
24.71

Patterson
Stanislaus
20,977
3,523.2
40
1.91
626
29.84

Perris
Riverside
73,223
2,332.4
180
2.46
1,905
26.02

Petaluma
Sonoma
59,803
4,158.2
200
3.34
1,074
17.96

Pico Rivera
Los Angeles
63,970
7,710.9
275
4.3
1,360
21.26

Piedmont
Alameda
11,170
6,570.6
8
0.72
232
20.77

Pinole
Contra Costa
19,034
3,695.9
69
3.63
632
33.2

Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
7,910
2,197.8
26
3.29
387
48.93

Pittsburg
Contra Costa
67,509
3,927.7
175
2.59
2,362
34.99

Placentia
Orange
52,513
7,939.7
82
1.56
732
13.94

Placerville
El Dorado
10,486
1,804.2
57
5.44
273
26.03

Pleasant Hill
Contra Costa
34,363
4,856.3
60
1.75
1,738
50.58

Pleasanton
Alameda
75,060
3,072.8
61
0.81
1,244
16.57

Pomona
Los Angeles
151,899
6,618.1
777
5.12
4,403
28.99

Porterville
Tulare
55,391
3,145.8
158
2.85
1,204
21.74

Port Hueneme
Ventura
22,247
4,998.2
89
4.0
347
15.6

Poway
San Diego
49,786
1,274.0
70
1.41
436
8.76

Rancho Cordova
Sacramento
68,636
1,969.3
305
4.44
1,644
23.95

Rancho Cucamonga
San Bernardino
172,694
4,332.1
283
1.64
3,668
21.24

Rancho Mirage
Riverside
17,926
732.8
29
1.62
677
37.77

Rancho Palos Verdes
Los Angeles
42,645
3,167.1
24
0.56
472
11.07

Rancho Santa Margarita
Orange
49,558
3,842.6
27
0.54
203
4.1

Red Bluff
Tehama
14,103
1,864.7
129
9.15
911
64.6

Redding
Shasta
91,426
1,532.8
610
6.67
3,924
42.92

Redlands
San Bernardino
70,295
1,951.0
147
2.09
2,837
40.36

Redondo Beach
Los Angeles
68,075
10,983.4
158
2.32
1,447
21.26

Redwood City
San Mateo
81,870
4,208.8
194
2.37
1,728
21.11

Reedley
Fresno
25,186
4,902.9
199
7.9
460
18.26

Rialto
San Bernardino
102,540
4,589.4
328
3.2
2,154
21.01

Richmond
Contra Costa
108,464
3,609.2
843
7.77
4,281
39.47

Ridgecrest
Kern
28,830
1,388.3
118
4.09
470
16.3

Rio Dell
Humboldt
3,358
1,472.2
19
5.66
57
16.97

Rio Vista
Solano
7,825
1,179.2
38
4.86
116
14.82

Ripon
San Joaquin
14,859
2,800.9
18
1.21
258
17.36

Riverbank
Stanislaus
23,690
5,789.3
28
1.18
688
29.04

Riverside
Riverside
319,453
3,935.2
1,384
4.33
9,864
30.88

Rocklin
Placer
60,371
3,088.8
50
0.83
1,039
17.21

Rohnert Park
Sonoma
41,535
5,931.0
160
3.85
735
17.7

Rolling Hills
Los Angeles
1,896
633.9
1
0.53
18
9.49

Rolling Hills Estates
Los Angeles
8,233
2,306.8
7
0.85
114
13.85

Rosemead
Los Angeles
54,748
10,606.0
147
2.69
1,186
21.66

Roseville
Placer
128,997
3,055.9
193
1.5
3,070
23.8

Ross
Marin
2,476
1,591.3
4
1.62
21
8.48

Sacramento
Sacramento
482,767
4,930.0
2,968
6.15
15,078
31.23

St. Helena
Napa
5,978
1,198.7
6
1.0
56
9.37

Salinas
Monterey
156,908
6,645.8
997
6.35
5,227
33.31

San Bernardino
San Bernardino
214,588
3,488.8
2,128
9.92
9,239
43.05

San Bruno
San Mateo
42,787
7,835.0
110
2.57
1,054
24.63

San Buenaventura (Ventura)
Ventura
109,246
5,007.6
276
2.53
3,867
35.4

San Clemente
Orange
65,397
3,562.7
69
1.06
687
10.51

Sand City
Monterey
343
610.3
4
11.66
165
481.05

San Diego
San Diego
1,368,690
4,208.9
5,214
3.81
26,812
19.59

San Dimas
Los Angeles
33,953
2,258.0
69
2.03
631
18.58

San Fernando
Los Angeles
24,362
10,262.0
75
3.08
406
16.67

San Francisco
San Francisco
850,294
18,132.6
6,761
7.95
45,093
53.03

San Gabriel
Los Angeles
40,409
9,748.9
83
2.05
555
13.73

Sanger
Fresno
24,771
4,330.6
97
3.92
549
22.16

San Jacinto
Riverside
46,216
1,797.1
101
2.19
1,875
40.57

San Jose
Santa Clara
1,009,679
5,718.3
3,242
3.21
24,577
24.34

San Juan Capistrano
Orange
36,124
2,537.7
62
1.72
383
10.6

San Leandro
Alameda
88,690
6,644.9
369
4.16
3,757
42.36

San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo
46,672
3,554.6
240
5.14
1,439
30.83

San Marcos
San Diego
90,799
3,726.6
196
2.16
1,286
14.16

San Marino
Los Angeles
13,371
3,549.5
5
0.37
221
16.53

San Mateo
San Mateo
102,082
8,415.7
230
2.25
1,944
19.04

San Pablo
Contra Costa
29,831
11,342.6
241
8.08
1,162
38.95

San Rafael
Marin
59,292
3,578.9
193
3.26
1,664
28.06

San Ramon
Contra Costa
75,049
4,036.8
23
0.31
748
9.97

Santa Ana
Orange
336,462
12,394.5
1,260
3.74
5,784
17.19

Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara
90,889
4,663.4
302
3.32
2,389
26.28

Santa Clara
Santa Clara
121,114
6,579.1
162
1.34
3,268
26.98

Santa Clarita
Los Angeles
206,930
3,924.3
307
1.48
2,437
11.78

Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
63,440
4,979.6
524
8.26
3,270
51.54

Santa Fe Springs
Los Angeles
17,254
1,944.8
74
4.29
1,124
65.14

Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
102,885
4,516.5
439
4.27
3,045
29.6

Santa Monica
Los Angeles
93,151
11,069.6
338
3.63
3,026
32.48

Santa Paula
Ventura
30,269
6,590.2
85
2.81
447
14.77

Santa Rosa
Sonoma
172,991
4,189.5
636
3.68
3,850
22.26

Santee
San Diego
56,737
3,495.8
130
2.29
794
13.99

Saratoga
Santa Clara
31,122
2,493.9
19
0.61
288
9.25

Sausalito
Marin
7,137
4,029.9
21
2.94
232
32.51

Scotts Valley
Santa Cruz
11,795
2,554.1
17
1.44
264
22.38

Seal Beach
Orange
24,727
2,188.8
26
1.05
494
19.98

Seaside
Monterey
34,350
3,717.5
116
3.38
507
14.76

Sebastopol
Sonoma
7,646
4,110.8
10
1.31
124
16.22

Selma
Fresno
24,404
4,749.7
154
6.31
986
40.4

Shafter
Kern
17,235
616.7
46
2.67
462
26.81

Sierra Madre
Los Angeles
11,090
3,755.5
13
1.17
92
8.3

Signal Hill
Los Angeles
11,411
5,244.0
40
3.51
500
43.82

Simi Valley
Ventura
126,604
3,052.5
140
1.11
1,618
12.78

Solana Beach
San Diego
13,321
3,784.4
22
1.65
188
14.11

Soledad
Monterey
25,807
5,846.6
53
2.05
232
8.99

Solvang
Santa Barbara
5,418
2,234.2
9
1.66
81
14.95

Sonoma
Sonoma
10,950
3,990.5
34
3.11
166
15.16

Sonora
Tuolumne
4,786
1,513.1
22
4.6
335
70.0

South El Monte
Los Angeles
20,465
7,198.4
120
5.86
647
31.61

South Gate
Los Angeles
95,981
13,264.4
506
5.27
2,687
28.0

South Lake Tahoe
El Dorado
21,379
2,104.6
112
5.24
516
24.14

South Pasadena
Los Angeles
26,041
7,647.9
30
1.15
475
18.24

South San Francisco
San Mateo
66,793
7,277.5
156
2.34
1,274
19.07

Stallion Springs
Kern
2,587
157.5
4
1.55
11
4.25

Stanton
Orange
38,791
12,525.3
124
3.2
684
17.63

Stockton
San Joaquin
299,519
4,857.0
3,988
13.31
13,148
43.9

Suisun City
Solano
28,986
7,061.1
68
2.35
606
20.91

Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
149,384
6,795.4
167
1.12
2,356
15.77

Susanville
Lassen
15,048
1,894.0
107
7.11
315
20.93

Sutter Creek
Amador
2,438
929.5
3
1.23
42
17.23

Taft
Kern
8,895
582.7
46
5.17
276
31.03

Tehachapi
Kern
12,997
1,316.2
51
3.92
309
23.77

Temecula
Riverside
108,308
2,910.6
100
0.92
2,535
23.41

Temple City
Los Angeles
36,272
9,054.4
45
1.24
428
11.8

Thousand Oaks
Ventura
129,175
2,340.8
128
0.99
1,599
12.38

Tiburon
Marin
9,232
2,076.5
1
0.11
107
11.59

Torrance
Los Angeles
147,971
7,225.9
155
1.05
2,623
17.73

Tracy
San Joaquin
85,078
3,770.9
129
1.52
2,262
26.59

Truckee
Nevada
16,161
500.0
18
1.11
164
10.15

Tulare
Tulare
61,596
3,023.1
457
7.42
2,054
33.35

Tulelake
Siskiyou
988
2,409.8
1
1.01
3
3.04

Turlock
Stanislaus
70,786
4,181.6
372
5.26
2,510
35.46

Tustin
Orange
79,046
7,103.3
132
1.67
1,356
17.15

Twentynine Palms
San Bernardino
25,936
438.5
62
2.39
301
11.61

Ukiah
Mendocino
15,836
3,391.0
134
8.46
551
34.79

Union City
Alameda
73,268
3,776.7
207
2.83
1,602
21.86

Upland
San Bernardino
75,790
4,853.0
170
2.24
2,165
28.57

Vacaville
Solano
94,701
3,336.5
268
2.83
2,587
27.32

Vallejo
Solano
119,504
3,896.3
1,034
8.65
4,877
40.81

Vernon
Los Angeles
115
23.1
25
217.39
312
2,713.04

Victorville
San Bernardino
122,316
1,668.0
642
5.25
4,374
35.76

Villa Park
Orange
5,982
2,877.3
5
0.84
84
14.04

Visalia
Tulare
128,488
3,448.6
484
3.77
3,796
29.54

Vista
San Diego
97,651
5,227.6
340
3.48
1,686
17.27

Walnut
Los Angeles
30,282
3,367.7
29
0.96
294
9.71

Walnut Creek
Contra Costa
67,555
3,418.9
74
1.1
2,439
36.1

Waterford
Stanislaus
8,646
3,713.9
18
2.08
196
22.67

Watsonville
Santa Cruz
52,778
7,891.4
265
5.02
1,489
28.21

Weed
Siskiyou
2,894
604.2
20
6.91
84
29.03

West Covina
Los Angeles
108,136
6,741.2
225
2.08
2,832
26.19

West Hollywood
Los Angeles
35,507
18,816.6
267
7.52
1,325
37.32

Westlake Village
Los Angeles
8,452
1,630.1
7
0.83
173
20.47

Westminster
Orange
92,217
9,182.2
194
2.1
2,210
23.97

Westmorland
Imperial
2,264
3,837.3
8
3.53
4
1.77

West Sacramento
Yolo
50,152
2,333.1
262
5.22
1,295
25.82

Wheatland
Yuba
3,521
2,160.1
4
1.14
50
14.2

Whittier
Los Angeles
86,952
5,935.7
239
2.75
2,247
25.84

Wildomar
Riverside
33,921
1,432.0
39
1.15
550
16.21

Williams
Colusa
5,188
953.0
6
1.16
64
12.34

Willits
Mendocino
4,814
1,720.5
33
6.86
50
10.39

Willows
Glenn
6,089
2,138.7
22
3.61
167
27.43

Windsor
Sonoma
27,350
3,763.1
86
3.14
254
9.29

Winters
Yolo
6,962
2,372.1
21
3.02
155
22.26

Woodlake
Tulare
7,700
3,334.8
30
3.9
122
15.84

Woodland
Yolo
56,854
3,714.5
298
5.24
1,756
30.89

Yorba Linda
Orange
67,702
3,505.3
45
0.66
702
10.37

Yountville
Napa
2,978
1,945.1
7
2.35
40
13.43

Yreka
Siskiyou
7,558
756.9
62
8.2
298
39.43

Yuba City
Sutter
65,525
4,473.0
223
3.4
1,699
25.93

Yucaipa
San Bernardino
52,794
1,858.9
71
1.34
978
18.52

Yucca Valley
San Bernardino
21,228
530.5
75
3.53
533
25.11


document_title: Commerce Clause

question_text: federal congress governs the affairs of most businesses through

text: Commerce Clause

text: Text and pairing[edit]

text: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

text: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

text: The significance of the Commerce Clause is described in the Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005):[4][5]

text: The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890.

text: The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to the Congress by the founders. The outer limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause power have been the subject of long, intense political controversy. Interpretation of the sixteen words of the Commerce Clause has helped define the balance of power between the federal government and the states and the balance of power between the two elected branches of the federal government and the Judiciary. As such, it directly affects the lives of American citizens.

text: Significance – federal rights in navigable waters[edit]

text: The commerce clause provides comprehensive powers to the United States over navigable waters. These powers are critical to understanding the rights of landowners adjoining or exercising what would otherwise be riparian rights under the common law. The Commerce Clause confers a unique position upon the Government in connection with navigable waters. "The power to regulate commerce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States... For this purpose they are the public property of the nation, and subject to all the requisite legislation by Congress." United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967). The Rands decision continues:

text: This power to regulate navigation confers upon the United States a dominant servitude, FPC v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239, 249 (1954), which extends to the entire stream and the stream bed below ordinary high-water mark. The proper exercise of this power is not an invasion of any private property rights in the stream or the lands underlying it, for the damage sustained does not result from taking property from riparian owners within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment but from the lawful exercise of a power to which the interests of riparian owners have always been subject. United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 596–597 (1941); Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S. 269, 275–276 (1897). Thus, without being constitutionally obligated to pay compensation, the United States may change the course of a navigable stream, South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U.S. 4 (1876), or otherwise impair or destroy a riparian owner's access to navigable waters, Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S. 269 (1897); Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141 (1900); United States v. Commodore Park, Inc., 324 U.S. 386 (1945), even though the market value of the riparian owner's land is substantially diminished.

text: Other scholars, such as Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy, argue that prior to 1887, the Commerce Clause was rarely invoked by Congress, and thus a broad interpretation of the word "commerce" was clearly never intended by the Founders. In support of this claim, they argue that the word "commerce", as used in the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, can be substituted with either "trade" or "exchange" interchangeably while preserving the meaning of the statements. They also point to Madison's statement in an 1828 letter that the "Constitution vests in Congress expressly...'the power to regulate trade'."[6][7]

text: Examining contemporaneous dictionaries does not neatly resolve the matter. For instance, the 1792 edition of Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language defines the noun "commerce" narrowly as "[e]xchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick", but it defines the corresponding verb "to commerce" more broadly as "[t]o hold intercourse."[8] The word "intercourse" also had a different and wider meaning back in 1792 than it does now.

text: Early years (1800s–1830s)[edit]

text: Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) that the power to regulate interstate commerce also included the power to regulate interstate navigation: "Commerce, undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something more—it is intercourse ... [A] power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted, as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce' ... [T]he power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several states. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines." The Court's decision contains language supporting one important line of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the idea that the electoral process of representative government represents the primary limitation on the exercise of the Commerce Clause powers:

text: The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments....

text: In Gibbons, the Court struck down New York's attempt to grant a steamboat monopoly to Robert Fulton, which he had then ultimately franchised to Ogden. Ogden claimed river traffic was not "commerce" under the Commerce Clause and further that Congress could not interfere with New York State's grant of an exclusive monopoly within its own borders. Ogden's assertion was untenable: he contended New York could control river traffic within New York all the way to the border with New Jersey, that New Jersey could control river traffic within New Jersey all the way to the border with New York, leaving Congress with the power to control the traffic as it crossed the state line.

text: Thus, Ogden contended, Congress could not invalidate his monopoly as long as he only transported passengers within New York. The Supreme Court, however, found that Congress could invalidate his monopoly since it was operational on an interstate channel of navigation.

text: In its decision, the Court assumed interstate commerce required movement of the subject of regulation across state borders. The decision contains the following principles, some of which have since been altered by subsequent decisions:

text:
Commerce is "intercourse, all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse."
Commerce among the states cannot stop at the external boundary-line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior... Comprehensive as the word "among" is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one."
The Commerce power is the power to regulate, that is "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed" which "may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution."

tag: ul

text: Additionally, the Marshall Court limited the extent of federal maritime and admiralty jurisdiction to tidewaters in The Steamboat Thomas Jefferson.[9]

text: In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831), the Supreme Court addressed whether the Cherokee nation is a foreign state in the sense in which that term is used in the constitution. The Court provided a definition of Indian tribe that clearly made the rights of tribes far inferior to those of foreign states. In part the court said:

text: "Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian."

text: Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence[edit]

text: As explained in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), "For nearly a century thereafter (that is, after Gibbons), the Court's Commerce Clause decisions dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress' power, and almost entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce.[10] Under this line of precedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as "exhibitions", "production", "manufacturing", and "mining" were within the province of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. When Congress began to engage in economic regulation on a national scale, the Court's dormant Commerce Clause decisions influenced its approach to Congressional regulation.

text: In this context, the Court took a formalistic approach, which distinguished between services and commerce, manufacturing and commerce, direct and indirect effects on commerce, and local and national activities. See concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy in United States v. Lopez. ("One approach the Court used to inquire into the lawfulness of state authority was to draw content-based or subject-matter distinctions, thus defining by semantic or formalistic categories those activities that were commerce and those that were not.") The Dormant Commerce Clause formalisms spilled over into its Article I jurisprudence. While Congress had the power to regulate commerce, it could not regulate manufacturing, which was seen as being entirely local. In Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), the Court struck a federal law which prohibited the manufacture of liquor for shipment across state lines. Similar decisions were issued with regard to agriculture, mining, oil production, and generation of electricity. In Swift v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), the Court ruled that the clause covered meatpackers; although their activity was geographically "local", they had an important effect on the "current of commerce", and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause. The Court's decision halted price fixing. Stafford v. Wallace (1922) upheld a federal law (the Packers and Stockyards Act) regulating the Chicago meatpacking industry, because the industry was part of the interstate commerce of beef from ranchers to dinner tables. The stockyards "are but a throat through which the current [of commerce] flows," Chief Justice Taft wrote, referring to the stockyards as "great national public utilities." As Justice Kennedy wrote: (in a concurring opinion to United States v. Lopez), "Though that [formalistic] approach likely would not have survived even if confined to the question of a State's authority to enact legislation, it was not at all propitious when applied to the quite different question of what subjects were within the reach of the national power when Congress chose to exercise it."

text: Similarly, the court excluded most services by distinguishing them from commerce. In Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), which was later upheld in Toolson v. New York Yankees (1953) and Flood v. Kuhn (1973), the court excluded nonproduction-related services, such as live entertainment, from the definition of commerce:

text:
“
That to which it is incident, the exhibition, although made for money, would not be called trade of commerce in the commonly accepted use of those words. As it is put by defendant, personal effort not related to production is not a subject of commerce.
”

text: New Deal[edit]

text: In 1935 the Supreme Court of the United States, in Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States, invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress's power under the commerce clause. This was a unanimous decision that rendered the National Industrial Recovery Act, a main component of President Roosevelt's New Deal, unconstitutional. Again in 1936, in Carter v. Carter Coal Company,[11] the Supreme Court struck down a key element of the New Deal's regulation of the mining industry, on the grounds that mining was not "commerce." In the preceding decades, the Court had struck down a laundry list of Progressive legislation – minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, agricultural relief laws, and virtually every element of the New Deal legislation that had come before it. After winning re-election in 1936, Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, wherein the President could appoint an additional Justice for each sitting Justice over age 70. Given the age of the current Justices, this allowed a Supreme Court size of up to 15 Justices. Roosevelt claimed that this was intended to lessen the load on the older Justices, rather than being an attempt to achieve a majority that would cease to strike his New Deal acts.

text: Ultimately, there was widespread opposition to this "court packing" plan and in the end Roosevelt abandoned it. However, in what became known as "the switch in time that saved nine", shortly after the "court packing" plan was proposed, Justice Owen Roberts joined the 5-4 majority opinion in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). The majority narrowly upheld a Washington state minimum wage law, abandoning prior jurisprudence, ending the Lochner era. This essentially marked the beginning of the end of Supreme Court opposition to the New Deal, obviating the political need for the "court packing" scheme as well.

text: In United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. The Court stated that the Tenth Amendment "is but a truism" and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.[12]

text: In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:

text: The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.[13]

text: In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which sought to stabilize wide fluctuations in the market price for wheat. The Court found that Congress could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption could potentially be sufficiently large as to affect the overall national goal of stabilizing prices. The Court cited its recent Wrightwood decision and decided that "[w]hether the subject of the regulation in question was "production," "consumption," or "marketing" is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us." The Court re-iterated Marshall's decision in Gibbons: "He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political, rather than from judicial, processes." The Court also stated that "[t]he conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination. And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness, of the plan of regulation, we have nothing to do."[14]

text: Thereafter, the Court began to defer to the Congress on the theory that determining whether legislation affected commerce appropriately was a political and legislative, not a judicial, decision. This overall change in the Court's jurisprudence, beginning with Parrish, is often referred to as the Constitutional Revolution of 1937,[15] in which the Court shifted from exercising judicial review of legislative acts to protect economic rights, to a paradigm which focused most strongly on protecting civil liberties.[16]

text: It was not until United States v. Lopez (1995) decision, after nearly 60 years of leaving any restraint on the use of the Commerce Clause to political means only, that the Court again ruled that a regulation enacted under the Clause was unconstitutional.

text: Civil rights[edit]

text: The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

text: The Rehnquist Court[edit]

text: The Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence restored limits to the Interstate Commerce Clause that were removed in post-New Deal decisions, based primarily on concerns of federalism and encroachment by Congress on the several States' police powers. It upheld Congress's plenary authority to legislate in Indian affairs that was derived from the Worcester decision's interpretation of the Indian Commerce Clause, but modified Worcester by giving the several states some jurisdiction over Indian affairs beyond what had been granted to them by Congress. Another view is that the Court was compelled to define limits to address Congressional legislation which sought to use the Interstate Commerce Clause power in new and unprecedented ways. In United States v. Lopez, the Court confronted conviction of a 12th Grade student for carrying a concealed handgun into school in violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). The Gun-Free School Zones Act made it a federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a school zone. The legislation posed several challenging problems for Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Education is a traditionally local government activity, and while education undoubtedly has an economic aspect, the nexus between regulating gun violence and the Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce seems particularly strained. In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court ruled Congress was exercising its Commerce Clause power to regulate local economic activity in ways that the States were powerless to regulate, because only the federal government could effectively control the national wheat supply. The Court reasoned that if Wickard could be applied to acts of gun violence, simply because crime impaired education, Congress might conclude that crime in schools substantially affects commerce, and may be regulated. Under this logic, all police power could be nationalized and local police and criminal courts eliminated on the theory that all crime affects commerce.

text: As the majority explained:

text: Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

text: The opinion pointed out that prior decisions had identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.

text:
First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce;[17]
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;[18]
Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce).[19]

text: Thus the federal government did not have the power to regulate relatively unrelated things such as the possession of firearms near schools, as in Lopez. This was the first time in sixty years, since the conflict with President Roosevelt in 1936–37, that the Court had overturned a putative regulation on interstate commerce because it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the entire nation.

text: The Lopez decision was clarified in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), in which the Supreme Court invalidated § 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA"). The VAWA created civil liability for the commission of a gender-based violent crime, but without any jurisdictional requirement of a connection to Interstate Commerce or commercial activity. 42 U.S.C. § 13981(c). Once again, the Court was presented with a Congressional attempt to criminalize traditional local criminal conduct. As in Lopez, it could not be argued that State regulation alone would be ineffective to protect the aggregate effects of local violence. The Court explained that in both Lopez and Morrison "the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision." Furthermore, the Court pointed out that in neither case was there an " 'express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach (to those instances that) have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.' " Id. at 1751. In both cases, Congress criminalized activity that was not commercial in nature without including a jurisdictional element establishing the necessary connection between the criminalized activity and Interstate Commerce.

text: The Court found in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) that, unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states.

text: Many described the Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause cases as a doctrine of "New Federalism". The outer limits of that doctrine were delineated by Gonzales v. Raich, in which Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy departed from their previous positions as parts of the Lopez and Morrison majorities to uphold a federal law regarding marijuana. The Court found the federal law valid, although the marijuana in question had been grown and consumed within a single state, and had never entered Interstate Commerce. The court held Congress may regulate an intrastate economic good if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce.

text: During the Rehnquist court and to present, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has played an integral part in the Court's view of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution while other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life. The Commerce Clause has been the most broadly interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws which, some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales,

text: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.[20]

text: Themes[edit]

text: Rational basis review[edit]

text: The evolving level of scrutiny applied by Federal courts to Commerce Clause cases should be considered in the context of rational basis review. The idea behind rational basis review is that the judiciary must show deference to the elected representatives of the people. A respect for the democratic process requires that the Courts uphold legislation if there are rational facts and reasons that could support Congressional judgment, even if the Justices would come to different conclusions. Throughout the 20th century, in a variety of contexts, courts sought to avoid second guessing the legislative branch, and Commerce Clause jurisprudence can be seen as a part of this trend. Lawrence Tribe states:

text: Since 1937, in applying the factual test in Jones & Laughlin to hold a broad range of activities sufficiently related to interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has exercised little independent judgment, choosing instead to defer to the expressed or implied findings of Congress to the effect that regulated activities have the requisite "economic effect". Such findings have been upheld whenever they could be said to rest upon some rational basis.[21] (Citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v United States (1964).)

text: Justice Rehnquist echoed this point in his opinion in United States v. Lopez, stating: "Since [Wickard], the Court has ... undertaken to decide whether a rational basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, 452 U.S. 264, 276–280 (1981);[22] Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 155–156 (1971);[23] Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 252–253 (1964)."[24]

text: Rational basis review begins with establishing the factual predicate upon which the exercise of Congressional power is based. This factual basis might come from a variety of sources. It might come from factual determinations made by Congress, passed in the legislation itself, or found in the Congressional Reports issued to accompany the legislation. It might come from the record of testimony compiled in Committee Hearings. It might come from facts posited by proponents in their briefs in support of the legislation. For example, the Court referenced extensive testimony presented in hearings in support of the conclusion that discrimination in public accommodations reduces interstate commerce. The Court wrote:

text: Of course, the mere fact that Congress has said when particular activity shall be deemed to affect commerce does not preclude further examination by this Court. But where we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end.

text: Similarly, in Gonzales v. Raich the Court upheld a ban on growing marijuana intended for medical use on the grounds that Congress could rationally conclude that such cultivation might make enforcement of drug laws more difficult by creating an otherwise lawful source of marijuana that could be diverted into the illicit market:

text: In assessing the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA.

text: Role of the political process[edit]

text: Since its decision in Gibbons, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate only those activities within a state that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction and that, viewed in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce. Since judicial interpretations of constitutional limitations on Congressional exercise of its Commerce Clause powers represent an invasion of the democratic process which may not be overturned through ordinary democratic means, the Court has continued to assert that the primary limitation on the unwise exercise of Congressional Commerce Clause power by Congress must be found at the ballot box. Thus in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), the Court stated:

text: Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.

text: Debate over applicability to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

text: Questions over the range and applicability of the Commerce Clause have arisen in debate over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"). The debate centers around whether Congress is authorized to require citizens to purchase health insurance from the private market, known as the individual mandate. Congress claims authority from the Commerce Clause. However, many opponents of the PPACA have claimed that the individual mandate exceeds Congress's authority thereunder, primarily on the position that the law attempts to define the non-purchase of insurance as "commerce".

text: Twenty-six state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming the insurance mandate is unconstitutional. On June 8, 2011, a panel of three judges from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta held hearings on the issue.[25] On August 12, 2011. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Individual Mandate portion unconstitutional, stating that Congress had exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage.[26]

text: Differing court opinions have clashed over the question of whether failure to purchase insurance can be considered an economic activity that affects interstate commerce. In Virginia v. Sebelius, Judge Henry Hudson overturned the law, claiming that failure to purchase health insurance coverage could not be considered economic activity, being rather economic "inactivity." In Liberty University v. Geithner, Judge Norman Moon upheld the law, countering:

text: Similarly, in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, judge George Steeh ruled that such decisions have "a documented impact on interstate commerce."[27]

text: In response to the Virginia decision, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the appeal immediately, rather than going through the Fourth Circuit. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case in the spring of 2012.[28] The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 26–28, 2012. Its majority opinion agreed that upholding the PPACA under the commerce clause "would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority" and that "the power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated".[29] The Court held that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance, but still upheld the law's "individual mandate" provision under Congress' taxing authority.[30]


document_title: Figaro (Disney)

question_text: what is the cat's name on mickey mouse clubhouse

question_tokens: what is the cat 's name on mickey mouse clubhouse

text: Figaro (Disney)

text: History[edit]

text: Figaro is probably best known as the pet cat of Mister Geppetto and Pinocchio. Figaro was Walt Disney's favorite character in Pinocchio; he loved the kitten so much, he wanted him to appear as much as possible. Once production on Pinocchio was done, Walt made him the pet of Minnie Mouse, replacing Fifi. He has also starred independently in a number of Disney shorts, as the pet cat of Minnie Mouse, as it was common for Disney characters to be transposed from movies to cartoon shorts. Three of the cartoons he appeared in were his own cartoons; "Figaro and Cleo" (1943), "Bath Day" (1946) and "Figaro and Frankie" (1947). Similar to Pluto, Figaro is one of the few Disney characters who is not anthropomorphized, but just a normal cat. He has a cameo in Disney's Alice in Wonderland as a caterpillar being annoyed by a copper centipede. In the 1970s Disney mini-comics, Figaro not only "guest-starred" with other Disney characters/comics but had his own column on various Felines as "Figaro's Feline Friends". After nearly a 50-year hiatus of not being in any new Disney cartoons, Figaro, like many other Disney characters of the 1940s and 1950s, was cast as a customer in Disney's House of Mouse. While the video game Kingdom Hearts featured a level taking place inside Monstro's belly and included Pinocchio, Gepetto and Cleo, Figaro was absent (although he does appear in the manga based on the first game). Figaro's most recent appearance has been in several episodes of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Minnie's Bow-Toons, as her pet cat. It could possibly be a different cat named Figaro as Cleo, his counterpart, is never seen.

text: In the parks[edit]

text: Figaro can be found all over the Disney theme parks, including Pinocchio's Daring Journey and Celebrate A Dreams Come True Parade. At Fantasy Faire in Disneyland, Figaro can be seen sleeping in a window of one of the buildings. He is occasionally awoken by a caged bird that chirps familiar Disney songs.

text: In the Pinocchio's Village Haus restaurant, he appears in various murals retelling the Pinocchio Story, as well as serving as the namesake of Figaro Fries and appearing over the exit. A design flaw led to the exit signs not being properly centered at Disneyland and Walt Disney World's versions of the restaurant, so Figaro is shown pulling the sign on a rope to fix things. At Disneyland Paris, the problem was corrected and Figaro is shown leaning on the exit sign giving a thumb's up.

text: His namesake is also used in a shop called Figaro's Clothiers located in the Mediterranean Harbor at Tokyo DisneySea.

text: Personality[edit]

text: Figaro is based on and acts like an immature and spoiled little boy. He is easily angered but deep down has a heart of gold. He takes a disliking to many things including, but not limited to, waiting, baths, being made a fool of, dogs and giving Cleo a goodnight kiss.

text: In the shorts, his character was made less cuddly and more malicious and cat-like. He is a prime rival of Pluto as the two are constantly seen battling each other for different things, most notably Minnie's affections. Figaro usually enjoys tormenting Pluto when no one's around but occasionally learns to make peace with the pup. In recent years, Figaro and Pluto's relationship become a lot less hostile.

text: In his modern appearances in Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Minnie's BowToons, we see his personality change as he becomes more well behaved. He acts as a close friend and confidant to Minnie, often sleeping in her shop while she works. His roles in the show have been minor so far.

text: His enemies include Monstro, Pete and sometimes Pluto in select shorts.

text: WWII mascot[edit]

text: Figaro is the mascot of RAF Ace Ian Gleed's Hawker Hurricanes during, and after, the Battle of Britain and his Spitfire Mk. Vb Trop which he flew while he was in action over the Western Desert and the Mediterranean during the middle of the war.[1]

text: Appearances[edit]

text:
Pinocchio (1940) (shown here with Cleo and Jiminy Cricket)
Figaro and Cleo (1943)
Victory Vehicles (1943)
First Aiders (1944)
Donald's Crime (1945) (shown rummaging in rubbish bin)
Bath Day (1946)
Figaro and Frankie (1947)
Cat Nap Pluto (1948)
Pluto's Sweater (1949)
Alice in Wonderland (1951, cameo)
Disney's Halloween Treat (1982) (excerpts from Pluto's Sweater and Cat Nap Pluto)
Mickey Mouse Works (1999)
Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas (1999)
Disney's House of Mouse (2001–2003)
Disney's Magical Mirror Starring Mickey Mouse (2002, cameo)
Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (2006–2016)
Minnie's Bow-Toons (2011–2016)

tag: ol