He cited Gonzales v. Raich (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15647611274064109718), a case about a person who grew marijuana for themselves. The marijuana was never sold and it never crossed state lines. The federal government claimed the Commerce Clause authorized the regulation/criminalization due to “the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere”. Sounds reasonable.
Returning to Gorsuch’s confirmation written response: There the Court made clear that “Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established.” [] If confirmed, I would enforce these Supreme Court rulings fully
This all stems from Wickard v. Filburn. Filburn grew wheat for his own use on his farm (he raised cattle and chicken). The Court’s reasoning was that the aggregate impact of farmers growing wheat for their own use would have an effect on interstate commerce, therefore it was subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.
I’m not thrilled by Wickard, or Gorsuch’s enthusiasm for precedent rather than the Constitution. Unfortunately this mindset is endemic. I pray he is like Scalia or Thomas.