Article I - Congress’s Powers Flashcards
McCulloch v. Maryland; Facts, Rule, Takeaways
MD tries to tax bank of the US, argues creating a bank is beyond Congress’s authority
Rule: Constitution gives Congress power to tax
Takeaway: The necessary and proper clause allows congress to make law which “amplifies” an express grant of authority in order to help effectuate those express grants of authority.
- such as create a bank to assist with taxation
- state taxing a fed institution is beyond jurisdiction
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, C.J. Marshall’s Quote on necessary and proper clause
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional”
United States v. Comstock (illustrates potential breadth of necessary and proper); Facts, holding, and factors
A federal law allows a district court to civilly detain prisoners who are considered mentally ill and sexually dangerous beyond the end of their sentence
Holding: Constitutional under necessary and proper clause
Based on the following Factors:
1. Necessary and proper clause is broad
2. The long history of federal involvement in this arena,
3. The Government’s custodial interest in safeguarding the public
4. The statute’s accommodation of state interests, and
5. The statute’s narrow scope.
United States v Lopez - The current test for commerce clause
Congress may regulate only three broad categories of activities:
- Activity that uses the channels of interstate commerce;
- The instrumentalities of, or persons or things in, interstate commerce; and
- Activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce. (the “catch all” bucket)
United States v. Morrison; Facts and Rule
Federal cause of action, violence against women act, court finds congress lacks the power to enact under the commerce clause
Rule: Commerce clause can only regulate “economic” activity and can not touch “traditional areas of state law” such as family law
Gonzales v. Raich; backtrack for the commerce clause
Marijuana case, conflict between federal and CA law
Chips back at the idea that congress can’t regulate crime by referring back to Wickard v. Filburn, “Congress may regulate the use and production of home-grown marijuana as this activity, taken in the aggregate, could rationally be seen as having a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”
Court adds:
“Congress is entitled to a strong presumption of validity”
Scalia concurrence: Congress can regulate noneconomic activity under the necessary and proper clause
NFIB v. Sebelius; the individual mandate for Obamacare
Commerce clause doesn’t work, but the individual mandate contained in the Act is a valid use of Congress’s power to tax.
- the penalty provision operates more like a tax
- the court interprets legislation as constitutional if possible, can be saved if interpreted as a tax
NFIB v. Sebelius; tax test
- Whether there is an exceedingly heavy burden
- Whether there is a scienter requirement
- Whether the payment is enforced/collected by the IRS
NFIB v. Sebelius; medicaid expansion
Medicaid extension is unconstitutional: the federal government cannot withhold existing Medicaid funding from states that choose not to participate.
Conditioning some funding on compliance is okay, threatening ALL federal funding is coercive (contrast this case with South Dakota v. Dole)
South Dakota v. Dole - spending power
Facts:
1. Congress conditioned 5% of federal money for interstate highway on drinking age being raised from 19 to 21
2. SD sued saying Congress’ power is limited by the 21st amendment: alcohol regulation is for the states
Rule: The receipt of federal funds may be conditional if
1. It’s for the general welfare,
2. the conditions are unambiguous,
3. the conditions are related to the purpose of the spending, and
4. the conditions do not violate any other constitutional provisions such as the Tenth Amendment (The financial inducement must not be “so coercive so as to turn pressure into compulsion.”)
Printz v. United States; anti-commandeering principle
10th amendment’s anti-commandeering principle
- Congress can’t tell state employees what to do
- Brady bill, telling state LEOs to conduct background checks violates anti-commandeering principle
- Court holds, when you tell state employees what to do, you’re telling the state what to do
Murphy v. NCAA; anti-commandeering principle
10th amendment’s anti-commandeering principle
- Congress can’t tell states not to change their laws
- Congress ordered the states to freeze the current laws on sports gambling in order to avoid a race to the bottom induced by economic pressure from states which do allow gambling.
- SCOTUS - telling states to keep the law the way it is, is the same thing as telling states they can’t legalize gambling, and therefore violates the anti-commandeering principle
Whitman v. American Trucking Assoc.; Anti-Delegation Doctrine
10th amendment’s Anti-Delegation Doctrine
EPA found to be unconstitutionally granted legislative power under the Clean Air Act because there was no intelligible principle.
Rule: Legislation delegating decision making authority to a federal agency must have an “intelligible principle”
INS v. Chadha; Anti-Delegation Doctrine
Facts
1. Kenyan citizen lawfully residing in the US, had expired student visa
2. Deportation was suspended by a US immigration judge, but that decision was “vetoed” by congress under the law at issue
Rule: Legislation providing Congress with a one-house veto over an action of the executive branch is unconstitutional because it does not meet the constitutional requirements of presentment and bicameralism.
Garcia v. Samta
Facts:
1. Congress set minimum wage and overtime standards
2. San Antonio Public Transportation did not pay minimum wage or overtime
Rule: Congress has the power to set a minimum wage under the commerce clause
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida; State Immunity
Facts:
1. Indian gaming regulatory act, passed by congress, imposed duty to negotiate in good faith with tribe on the states
2. Seminole Tribe sued FL for refusing to negotiate a plan to allow the tribe to run a casino
Holding: 11th amendment indicates that States have sovereign immunity
Takeaways:
1. Congress can not abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court, unless through an amendment after the 11th. (most likely 14th)
2. Rehnquist argues that the words of the 11th amendment do not matter, it’s the idea behind them, that states have sovereign immunity
Alden v. Maine; State Immunity
Facts: Probation officer filed federal suit against Maine for not paying overtime, seminole tribe causes suit to be tossed, Alden brought suit in state court
Rule: Congress can not abrogate state immunity in state court, even on federal claims, without the state’s consent
Holding: “The states’ sovereign immunity from suit is not actually derived from the Eleventh Amendment but is a fundamental concept of sovereignty they enjoyed before ratification of the United States Constitution.”
State immunity is not unlimited. States can be sued by:
- The federal government
- By anyone for violating constitutional rights
- By anyone if congressional statute uses power delegated past the 11th amendment
- Anyone can sue a state official performing their job for the state for injunctive or declaratory relief (no monetary damages) (Ex Parte Young)
NOTE: city, county, village, town, etc. are not states; they have no sovereign immunity
Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority; State Immunity
Facts:
1. Boat would go out into international waters for gambling, SC refused to let the boat use its ports.
2. P filed a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission alleging violation of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Rule: States have immunity in Fed Admin. proceedings
Holding: administrative proceedings are similar to federal court actions, because administrative judges issue subpoenas, rule on evidentiary issues, and exercise independent judgment.
Penneast Pipeline co. v. New Jersey; State Immunity
States do not have sovereign immunity from condemnation suits brought by private parties to whom the federal government has delegated eminent-domain power.
- This power includes the ability to take possession of the property immediately and pay the owner later or condemn the property in court.
- States implicitly conceded immunity from eminent domain by ratifying the Constitution
- State immunity would leave eminent domain power incomplete
Torres; State Immunity
Congress can authorize suits against states that involve veteran’s issues
- The Constitution gives complete power over the army and navy to the national government
- Congress can use this power to authorize lawsuits against nonconsenting states.
Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell
Contracts are limited by the state’s obligation to protect people. Those limitations must be reasonable.
Facts:
1. State of Minnesota issues mortgage moratorium, preventing foreclosures, but requiring rent, and with a time limit
2. Banks fight this as violating the contracts clause: altering the terms of the contracts
Holding: Here, the bank is still getting rent and the moratorium is temporary. Therefore, it is reasonable
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton
States can’t amend requirements to congressional candidacy
Court reasoned that “Manner,” in Article I’s time, place, and manner clause, means the procedural elements of an election, not determining qualifications
Chifalo v. Washington
States can sanction electors and dictate to electors how to do their job
Article II, section 1, para 2, “manner” includes substantive things, not just procedure like in US term limits
functional argument is this avoids chaos
