10 Amendment - Case Take Aways

Question 1

National League of Cities v. Usery

Answer 1

Pre-Garcia 10th Amendment Jurisprudence

National League of Cities v. Usery - F.L.S.A. interferes with state sovereignty

Congressional interference with “traditional government functions” violates the 10th Amendment (i.e., Fire prevention, police power, sanitation, etc.)

Traditional Function vs. Non-Traditional Function established as the test (Proved to be unworkable)

Question 2

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

Answer 2

Post-Garcia 10th Amendment Jurisprudence

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (F.L.S.A applies to non-traditional function)

• The determination of traditional and non-traditional state functions is an inappropriate standard for determining whether Congress may enforce the FLSA against a public employer.
  
  • No scope of immunity, Commerce Power extends to all employment
  • Court decides it is unwise for the unelected federal judiciary to be allowed to decide what are the traditional/integral/necessary parts of state government without guidance
  • Institutional Competency Argument – Electoral process better protects the States than the traditional/non-traditional jurisprudence
• The political process is better for protecting state sovereignty

Question 3

New York v. United States

Answer 3

Post-Garcia 10th Amendment Jurisprudence

New York v. United States - Radioactive Waste Disposal Program – Anti-Commandeering

• Congress can provide incentives for the states to comply through approved methods but cannot compel or force the states to do so
  
  • Congress cannot cross the line from encouragement into coercion
  • Furthermore, States cannot waive or consent to a violation of federalism principles
• Approved Incentive Methods:
  
  • Financial incentive (Through Congress’ spending power)
  • Program of cooperative federalism whereby states choose to adopt encouraged statute
  • Preemption by federal law via Supremacy Clause
• Generally Applicable Factor – Courts are less likely to find a 10th Amendment violation unless the law targets states as states (Unlike Garcia)

Question 4

Printz v. United States

Answer 4

Post-Garcia 10th Amendment Jurisprudence

Printz v. United States (Handgun Act’s interim provisions required action of state & local police)

Categorical rule that Congress may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program

• Scalia rejects the contention that the benefits and burdens must be balanced
• Broadens the N.Y, holding such that Congress cannot make the states enforce laws

Question 5

Reno v. Condon

Answer 5

Post-Garcia 10th Amendment Jurisprudence

Reno v. Condon - Federal legislation bars the dissemination of DMV information

No 10th amendment violation because, Congress has commerce clause authority

• No affirmative action or regulation required of the states (mere prohibition)
• Does not target states as states, just includes them within a generally applicable prohibition

Question 6

NFIB v. Sebelius

Answer 6

Post-Garcia 10th Amendment Jurisprudence

NFIB v. Sebelius - Obamacare’s Individual Mandate – Not a binding majority holding

Commerce clause powers do not apply to inactivity and compelling individuals to engage in commerce (New Emerging Principle - lacks a majority holding)

• Necessary & Proper clause is not a license of any great substantive and independent powers but merely a declaration that the means of carrying into execution those powers otherwise granted are include in the grant

Penalty held to be a tax in substance over form

• Not punishment but allowed for a reasonable choice to not buy insurance
• Constitutional exercise of the taxing power

Medicaid Expansion – Violated 10th amendment’s anti-commandeering principle

• Did not concern a separate and new program, The States did not have the option to just participate in the old Medicaid (Coercive Measure, No option but to participate)