With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". §§ 2000a et seq., to a local restaurant. 379 U.S. at 303-05, 85 S.Ct. at 383-84. The Court found the application of the statute to be within Congress' commerce power because the restaurant bought 46% of its food, costing approximately $70,000, from a local supplier who obtained it from outside of the state. Id. at 296, 298, 85 S.Ct. at 379-80, 380-81. In part, the McClung Court relied on the fact that the amount of food the restaurant procured from out of state, " 'taken together with that of many others similarly situated,’ ” was " 'far from trivial. ” Id. at 301, 85 S.Ct at 382 (quoting Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127-28, 63 S.Ct. 82, 90, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942)). Cf. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 744, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 1849-50, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 10 . But see Terry v. Reno, 101 F.3d 1412,

A: holding that housing discrimination has a substantial effect on interstate commerce
B: holding that physicians claim against peer review committee satisfied the interstate commerce jurisdictional requirements of the sherman act
C: holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce
D: holding that a conspiracy against a north carolina hospital had a substantial effect on interstate commerce and hence was covered by the sherman act because it could inter alia reduce the hospitals purchases of outofstate medicines and supplies
D.