Congress's Enforcement Powers (14A) Flashcards
Shelley v. Kraemer: Shelley’s bought house, that unknowingly was on a area w a racially restrictive covenant that didnt allow “negro or mongolian race,” for 50 years
Problem: These were private contracts they are wanting gov enforcement on; Because you’re asking government to get involved= state action
Holding (Chief Justice Vinson): Government is not going to back racial covenants
—- Clear EP violation so didn’t need to look at DP of P&I
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison: MEC (private actor + public utility) was sued when MEC terminated electricity w/o notice, hearing, or opportunity to pay
Issue:
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restricts the actions of a privately-owned electricity company. → No
Holding + Rationale (Renquist)
The fact that Pennsylvania granted a monopoly to Metropolitan Edison over its service area is not enough to show that the private company was acting as the state.
In the present case, the State of Pennsylvania is not sufficiently connected with Metropolitan Edison’s action in terminating Jackson’s service so as to make the action fairly attributable to Pennsylvania.
Just because you are regulated by the state, it does not automatically mean you are a state actor
Douglas Dissent
The majority should have considered the aggregate of factors present in the relationship between Metropolitan Edison and Pennsylvania—not single factual circumstances—in determining whether their actions were public or private.
Brennan Dissent
No actual controversy existed. Under regulation, Edison is required to provide electricity to “customers lawfully receiving service” Jackson stopped paying her bills and therefore was not a customer and not entitled to electricity
Marshall Dissent
A variety of factors exist that make the actions of Metropolitan Edison sufficiently close to Pennsylvania so they could be fairly attributed to Pennsylvania itself.
Edison provides an essential public service, was subject to significant regulations by the state, and was granted approval by the state to cut power
Katzenbach v. Morgan: VRA prohibited states from applying English literacy requirements to Puerto Rican-born U.S. citizens. NY statute had literacy test with purpose keep non english speakers from voting
Holding + Rationale (Brennan)
Yes. The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment included §5 to grant Congress with broad power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, Congress may pass legislation under its powers in §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provided that the legislation is
(1) an enactment to enforce a provision of the Equal Protection Clause;
(2) plainly adapted to that end; and
(3) consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Here Congress specifically enacted the provision to prevent unequal treatment of Puerto Ricans under the law Deference is given to congress’s judgment
Harlan Dissent: -
NY had constitutional authority to regulate requirements in Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. 45 (1959), the Court upheld the constitutionality of a statE literary qualification. it is for the Court to decide—not Congress—whether the condition with which Congress has sought to deal is truly an infringement of the Constitution.
If it were otherwise, Congress would be able to qualify the Court’s constitutional decisions under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, as well as other constitutional provisions, by resorting to the Necessary and Proper Clause.
City of Boerne v. Flores: P brought suit against the City under the RFRA after the City denied his church’s application for a building permit to make necessary expansions; The city denied the church’s permit pursuant to a city ordinance that prevented expansions and alterations of structures designated as historic landmarks or existing within historic districts; The Church was determined to be located in a historic district
Holding + Rationale
Congress has broad, but not unlimited, enforcement powers. Specifically, Congress’s powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment are strictly remedial and not plenary.
Accordingly, Congress has the power to enforce laws to prevent the violation of a constitutional right, but it does not have the power to define the substance of that constitutional right.
Here, the RFRA is outside the scope of Congress’s remedial enforcement powers, because it is overly broad in its scope and reach in relation to the desired ends of promoting religious freedom.
The RFRA would impose a much more significant burden on states in terms of litigation costs and difficulty of proof than was appropriate in relation to the proposed federal interest.
Stevens Concurrence:
The RFRA is a “law respecting the establishment of religion” as prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
If the historical building had been owned by an atheist, that person would not have been able to challenge the denial of a building permit based on the RFRA.
Thus, the RFRA unconstitutionally promoted the establishment of religion and should be struck down.
Scalia Concurrence:
Not all zoning laws such as those in this case need to be struck down as improper restraints on the free exercise of religion as suggested by dissent
O’Connor Dissent:
Smith was wrongly decided. Parties should re examine smith which improperly restricts the free exercise of religion
Only after re examining can we properly analyze the constitutionality of the RFA
Souter Dissent:
Smith has little value as precedent and should not be followed in the present case
City of Boerne
Majority (Kennedy): Congress may only enact legislation that uses proportional means for achieving a legislative purpose when exercising its remedial and preventive powers under Section 5 of the 14A to enforce a constitutional right.
There is no legislative override in our system; the court gets the last word
Congress can make laws with their enforcement power but they can’t change the court’s interpretation
the RFRA is outside the scope of Congress’s remedial enforcement powers under Section 5 of the 14A, because it is overly broad in its scope and reach in relation to the desired ends of promoting religious freedom; the RFRA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power
Dissent (O’Connor and Souter):
The court should reexamine the Free Exercise clause before determining the Constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Shelby County v. Holder: Places states with discriminatory voting laws on probation and they have to prove they aren’t discriminating
Holding + Reasoning: (Roberts)
There is no longer a substantial disparity in voter registration or turnout between white citizens and African American citizens in the states covered by the formula contained in § 4(b).
This coverage formula is based on 40-year-old data and does not reflect modern reality. Congress must justify these restrictions using the current conditions, not those of 40 years ago.
Thomas Concurrence:
The same reasons that support the decision that § 4(b) is unconstitutional also establish that the restrictions in § 5 are also unconstitutional
Ginsburg Dissent:
The 15th Amendment gives Congress the authority to ensure equal voting rights by appropriate legislation. Congress determined that the requirements in the Voting Rights Act were still necessary to ensure equal voting rights in order to continue progress and prevent a return to discriminatory voting restrictions.
The success of the Voting Rights Act is being used to find it unconstitutional.
Additionally, minorities are facing barriers other than attempts to simply block the ballot, such as vote dilution through gerrymandering, at-large voting, and discriminatory annexations.
Therefore, the Voting Rights Act satisfies the rational basis test.
