federal legislative power

Question 1

What must congress have in order to act?

Answer 1

Can only act with express or implied authority from Constitution

Question 2

What does the necessary and proper clause allow congress to do?

Answer 2

Congress can adopt all laws that are necessary and proper to carry out its authority can choose any means not prohibited by constitution to carry out its authority

Question 3

Congress may tax and spend for the what?

Answer 3

the general welfare

Question 4

what does the taxing and spending power allow congress to do?

Answer 4

can create any tax to raise revenue and any spending plan to spend it for the general welfare

Question 5

Commerce Clause

Answer 5

Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among several states, and with tribes

Question 6

What may Congress regulate under the Commerce power?

Answer 6

1. Economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
2. Non economic activities, a substantial effect cannot be based on cumulative impact

Question 7

Economic Commerce power

Answer 7

1. Channels
2. Instrumentalities Persons or things in interstate commerce
3. activites that substantially affect interstate commerce

Question 8

Tenth Amendment

Answer 8

the tenth amendment as a limit on Congressional powers. The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not granted to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people

Question 9

Can Congress compel state regulatory or legislative action?

Answer 9

No.

Question 10

What can Congress do instead of compelling, coercing, or commandeer state regulatory or legislative action?

Answer 10

Congress can induce state government action by putting strings on grants, so long as the conditions are expressly stated and relate to the purpose of the spending program.

Question 11

Can congress prohibit harmful commercial activity by state governments?

Answer 11

Yes, congress may prohibit harmful commercial activity by state governments.

Question 12

McCulloch v Maryland

Issue: Did Congress have the authority to charter a national bank, and could Maryland impose a tax on that bank?

Necessary and Proper Clause

Answer 12

Background: Maryland imposed a tax on the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States. McCulloch, a bank cashier, refused to pay the tax, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall held that Congress had the authority to charter the national bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause. He argued that the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause gave Congress implied powers, and states could not interfere with valid exercises of federal power. Marshall famously declared, “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

Significance: Established the principle of implied powers, emphasizing the supremacy of federal law over state law. The decision strengthened the federal government’s authority and set a precedent for interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause broadly.

Question 13

Gibbons v Ogden

Issue: Did the state of New York’s exclusive grant of a steamboat monopoly to Ogden conflict with the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce?

Commerce Clause

Answer 13

Background: Ogden held an exclusive license from the state of New York to operate steamboats on interstate waters, and Gibbons operated competing vessels with a federal coasting license granted by Congress.

Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall held that the New York law was unconstitutional. The Court interpreted the Commerce Clause broadly, giving Congress the power to regulate all aspects of commerce that involve more than one state. State laws that conflicted with federal laws on interstate commerce were deemed void.

Significance: Expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause, establishing the principle that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and state laws conflicting with this power are invalid. It played a crucial role in shaping federal supremacy in matters of commerce.

Question 14

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp

Issue: Did the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the creation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) exceed Congress’s constitutional authority?

interstate commerce

Answer 14

Background: Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. was accused of engaging in unfair labor practices, and the NLRB sought to remedy the situation under the newly enacted National Labor Relations Act.

Ruling: The Court upheld the NLRA, asserting that labor disputes substantially affecting interstate commerce could be regulated by Congress. The Court expanded the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Congress has the power to regulate intrastate activities that potentially could have a significant impact on interstate commerce.

Question 15

United States v Darby

Issue: Could the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which regulated minimum wages and maximum working hours, be constitutionally applied to intrastate commerce, or did it exceed Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause?

intrastate activity

Answer 15

Background: Darby Lumber Company was charged with violating the FLSA by paying less than the prescribed minimum wage and allowing employees to work excessive hours.

Ruling: The Court upheld the FLSA, asserting that the regulation of wages and hours for employees engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce was within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. It overruled an earlier decision (Hammer v. Dagenhart) that had limited the scope of federal regulation of child labor.

Significance: Clarified that Congress had the authority to regulate intrastate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The case played a role in expanding federal power over labor and employment practices.

Question 16

Wickard v Filburn

Issue: Did Congress have the authority to regulate and limit the amount of wheat that a farmer could grow for personal consumption, even if the excess was not intended for sale or interstate commerce?

intrastate activities - rational basis standard

Answer 16

Background: Filburn, a farmer, exceeded his wheat production quota under the Agricultural Adjustment Act by growing additional wheat for personal use. He challenged the Act’s constitutionality.

Ruling: The Court held that Congress had the authority to regulate even non-commercial, local activities that, in the aggregate, could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Filburn’s wheat, though for personal use, affected the overall supply and demand for wheat, thereby influencing interstate commerce.

Significance: Expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause by affirming Congress’s authority to regulate activities with a substantial aggregate effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual acts were local and non-commercial.

Question 17

Perez v United States

Answer 17

Background: Petitioner was convicted of “loansharking” activities, i.e., unlawfully using extortionate means in collecting and attempting to collect an extension of credit, in violation of Title II of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. He challenges the constitutionality of the statute on the ground that Congress has no power to control the local activity of loansharking.

Ruling: Title II of the Consumer Credit Protection Act is within Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause to control activities affecting interstate commerce, and Congress’ findings are adequate to support its conclusion that loansharks who use extortionate means to collect payments on loans are in a class largely controlled by organized crime with a substantially adverse effect on interstate commerce

* Standard - you must be in one of these categories if you want to bring a commerce clause case
	1. Channels - is a roadway 
	2. Instrumentalities, or people or things (in interstate commerce - is a vehicle or people or things
		i. Blowing up an air craft is an instrumentality - literally the thing that's moving in commerce
	3. Activities substantially affecting interstate commerce
		i. Economic/non-economic activity
		ii. Jurisdictional element - text in bill itself saying what power they are using and why
			□ Textual source/link to the commerce clause - that would be an express type of jurisdictional element
			□ Nexus between the problem + commerce
 iii. Legislative finding

Question 18

United States v Lopez

Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

emphasizes substantially affect

Answer 18

Background: Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows…is a school zone.” Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release.

In lopez, they say the statute is ambiguous so it doesn’t have express jurisdictional element

Ruling: Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic activity.

Question 19

United States v Morrison

Issue: Did Congress exceed its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when enacting the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)?

Answer 19

Background: Christy Brzonkala sued her alleged attackers under the civil remedy provision of VAWA, which allowed victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court. The question was whether this provision fell within Congress’s Commerce Clause powers.

Ruling: The Court held that the civil remedy provision of VAWA exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. The violence addressed by the provision was not economic in nature and lacked the requisite substantial effect on interstate commerce. The decision limited the scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause.

Significance: Marked a limitation on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority by establishing that non-economic violence, even if gender-motivated, does not fall under the purview of federal regulation unless it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Question 20

Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States

Issue: Did Congress have the constitutional authority, under the Commerce Clause, to prohibit racial discrimination in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and motels?

Answer 20

Background: The Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to accommodate African American guests, arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited racial discrimination in places of public accommodation, exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.

Ruling: The Court upheld the Act, asserting that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate businesses that engaged in interstate commerce. The Court recognized that racial discrimination in public accommodations could have a substantial impact on interstate travel and commerce.

Significance: Affirmed the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, establishing that Congress could regulate private businesses engaging in interstate commerce to prevent racial discrimination. The decision played a crucial role in advancing civil rights and ending segregation in public accommodations.

Question 21

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

Issue: Did the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling, violate the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment?

Answer 21

Background: Murphy challenged the constitutionality of PASPA after New Jersey sought to legalize sports gambling within its borders. PASPA prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling, except in states where it was already legal.

Ruling: The Court held that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment by impermissibly compelling states to maintain and enforce federal regulations. States were free to choose whether to allow sports gambling without federal interference.

Significance: Struck down a federal law that restricted states from legalizing sports gambling, establishing that Congress cannot compel states to adopt or maintain particular regulations. The decision had significant implications for state autonomy and the regulation of gambling.

Question 22

Gonzales v. Raich

Issue: Did the Controlled Substances Act, which criminalized the cultivation and use of marijuana, exceed Congress’s Commerce Clause power when applied to the intrastate, non-commercial cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes?

Answer 22

Background: Raich and Monson, medical marijuana users, challenged the application of the Controlled Substances Act to their intrastate, non-commercial cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Ruling: The Court upheld the Controlled Substances Act, asserting that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce allowed it to regulate even intrastate, non-commercial activities that had a substantial effect on the national market. The Court found that the cultivation and use of marijuana, even for personal medicinal use, could affect the overall interstate market for marijuana.

Significance: Reinforced Congress’s broad authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that, in the aggregate, could have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. It limited the scope of the “substantial effects” test for Commerce Clause challenges.

Question 23

Printz v. United States

Issue: Did provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers, violate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle?

Answer 23

Background: Printz, a county sheriff, and Mack, a county sheriff in Arizona, challenged the Brady Act’s provisions requiring them to perform background checks on gun buyers. They argued that the Act violated the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state and local officials.

Ruling: The Court held that the provisions of the Brady Act were unconstitutional as they violated the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment. Congress could not compel state or local law enforcement officers to implement federal regulatory programs.

Significance: Reinforced the anti-commandeering principle, asserting that Congress cannot force state and local officials to carry out federal regulatory programs. The decision had implications for the division of powers between the federal government and states.

Question 24

Reno v Condon

Issue: Did the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which regulated the disclosure of personal information obtained by state motor vehicle departments, violate the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state executive officials?

regulating v requiring

Answer 24

Background: Condon, the South Carolina Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, challenged the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, arguing that it violated the Tenth Amendment by compelling state officials to regulate private parties.

Ruling: The Court held that the Act did not violate the Tenth Amendment. It distinguished between commandeering state officials to regulate private parties, which would be unconstitutional, and regulating state officials themselves. The Act regulated state officials’ conduct in the course of their official duties, not their regulation of private parties.

Significance: Clarified the limits of the anti-commandeering principle, stating that while Congress cannot compel states to regulate private parties, it can regulate the conduct of state officials in the course of their official duties.

Question 25

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

Issue: Did the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which established minimum wage and overtime pay standards, apply to state and local government employees, or did it violate the Tenth Amendment by infringing on state sovereignty?

Answer 25

Background: Garcia, a state employee, challenged the application of the FLSA to state and local government employees, arguing that it violated the Tenth Amendment by intruding on state sovereignty.

Ruling: The Court held that the FLSA applied to state and local government employees and did not violate the Tenth Amendment. It distinguished between economic and political functions, stating that the FLSA’s regulation of wages did not interfere significantly with state sovereignty.

Significance: Marked a departure from earlier cases and established that Congress could apply federal labor laws, such as the FLSA, to state and local government employees without violating the Tenth Amendment, as long as it did not unduly interfere with state functions.

Question 26

Sabri v United States

Issue: Did the federal bribery statute, which criminalized the payment of bribes to local officials receiving federal funds, exceed Congress’s legislative authority and violate the Tenth Amendment?

Tax and spending

Answer 26

Background: Sabri was charged under the federal bribery statute for paying bribes to a local official who received federal funds. Sabri argued that the statute exceeded Congress’s legislative authority and violated the Tenth Amendment.

In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Article I of the Constitution allows Congress to prohibit bribery of organizations that distribute federal funds. The Justices found that the Spending Clause authorizes Congress to spend money for the general welfare, and that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes it to take any reasonable steps to prevent such money from being misspent.

Question 27

United States v. Butler

Issue: Did the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which imposed a tax on agricultural producers who exceeded production quotas, violate the Constitution’s Taxing and Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment?

taxing and spending

Answer 27

Background: Filburn, a farmer, challenged the Agricultural Adjustment Act after being penalized for exceeding wheat production quotas. He argued that the Act violated the Constitution’s Taxing and Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment.

Ruling: The Court held that the Act was unconstitutional as it exceeded Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. It emphasized that the Act sought to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter traditionally within the authority of the states, and exceeded the limits of federal power.

Significance: Limited Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, establishing that there were constitutional bounds on the extent to which Congress could regulate and control local economic activities under the guise of taxation.

Question 28

South Dakota v. Dole

Issue: Did Congress exceed its Spending Clause authority by conditioning a portion of federal highway funds on the state’s adoption of a minimum drinking age?

Answer 28

Background: South Dakota challenged a federal law that conditioned a percentage of federal highway funds on the state’s adoption of a minimum drinking age of 21. South Dakota argued that the condition violated the Tenth Amendment.

Ruling: The Court held that the condition was a valid exercise of Congress’s Spending Clause power. It found that the condition was related to the general welfare and that the financial inducement was not coercive. The Court established a three-part test for evaluating Spending Clause conditions.

Significance: Confirmed Congress’s authority under the Spending Clause to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds, as long as the conditions are related to the purpose of the spending program and are not unduly coercive.

Question 29

Spending Power

Answer 29

Spending power
1. Must be for general welfare
2. Must be unambiguous - if states agree, they must KNOWINGLY agree
3. Conditions related to federal interests
a. In this case, we won’t give you money unless you pass 21+ drinking laws
b. Federal interest is to protect the road
So is passing 21+ drinking laws actually relating to protecting the road

Question 30

Katzenbach v. Morgan

Issue: Did Congress exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment by enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited English literacy tests in certain states and territories?

15th amendment

Answer 30

Background: Morgan challenged the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that Congress exceeded its authority by prohibiting English literacy tests in certain jurisdictions.

Ruling: The Court upheld the Voting Rights Act, finding that Congress had the authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The Court emphasized that Congress had identified a pattern of discrimination and had a compelling interest in eliminating barriers to voting.

Significance: Reinforced Congress’s authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment through legislation, particularly in response to persistent racial discrimination in voting. The decision played a role in advancing civil rights by eliminating discriminatory voting practices.

Question 31

City of Boerne v. Flores

Issue: Did the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to protect religious liberties, exceed Congress’s enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment and violate the principles of federalism?

14th amendment

Answer 31

Background: Archbishop Flores challenged the City of Boerne’s denial of a building permit to expand a church under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that RFRA was unconstitutional.

Ruling: The Court held that RFRA was unconstitutional as it exceeded Congress’s enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment. It emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance of powers between the federal government and the states.

Significance: Limited Congress’s ability to use its enforcement powers to expand individual rights by striking down RFRA’s application to state and local laws. The decision highlighted the Court’s commitment to preserving the federal system of government.

Question 32

Shelby County v. Holder

Issue: Did the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which mandated certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws, violate the Constitution?

Answer 32

Background: Shelby County challenged the constitutionality of the preclearance requirement, arguing that it exceeded Congress’s authority and was no longer necessary.

Ruling: The Court held that the coverage formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance was outdated and exceeded Congress’s authority under the Fifteenth Amendment. It effectively invalidated the preclearance requirement, stating that it treated states unequally