Before this decision, the federal government did not have the "right" to compel a property owner what (not) to do with his land. The framers of the Consitution were pretty clear about states' rights, and limits of federal power. Prior to this decision, a reasonable reader of the Constitution and case law would have concluded "yea, the federal gov't cannot compel the property owner in this way".
The (court decision) and ban is wrong because A) it's essentially a Constitutional rewrite without the amendment process and B) the Federal gov't does not have the moral authority to mandate how a property owner interacts with his own property. The intent from the 1790 text is pretty clear about the hierarchy of individual rights > state rights > federal rights.
To be clear: I'm not arguing against federal regulation of interstate commerce. The Constitution defined that as "commerce [...] between the states". There needed to be an Amendment to formally redefine (or clarify) that section. There was no Amendment process for this expansion of gov't power.