Federal Regulation of the States - Regulation of States as Economic Actors and the Prohibition on Commandeering Flashcards
Commandeering
– The federal government using states government to enforce federal law
Maryland v. Wirtz
\The scope of the Commerce Clause extends to state-run enterprises such as hospitals and schools. Plaintiffs wanted the court to enjoin the defendant from enforcing the federal minimum wage in schools and hospitals. The Court said Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate significant economic enterprises. As a class, hospitals and schools are significant economic enterprises that affect interstate commerce by importing goods. Imposing the federal minimum wage would not infringe upon Maryland’s state government so it was okay to impose it.
National League of Cities v. Usery
The Fair Labor Standards Act as applied to state employers is unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Plaintiffs challenged Congress’s amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act that would make the law apply to state government employers. The Tenth Amendment gives states the power to control intrastate functions. Allowing Congress to control government employers would increase labor expenses, force them to cut back on training and other programs to comply with the FLSA’s wages, and would take away the states’ discretion in many areas of government employment.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the wages and hours of state employees under the Commerce Clause. States “retain a significant measure of sovereign authority…only to the extent that the Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and transferred those powers to the Federal Government.” (pg. 897) The Wage and Hour Administration of the United States Department of Labor said SAMTA could be regulated by the FLSA because it didn’t perform a traditional government function. Usery is overturned because it provided unnecessary protection to state governments. The states are protected by “the structure of the Federal Government.” The states are sufficiently protected by their power to elect presidents, are represented in the senate, and receive federal government funds to pay for public works.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
Eleventh Amendment
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
New York v. United States
Congress may not require a state to enact state regulation
New York v. United States
Issue
Whether Congress may direct or otherwise motivate the States to regulate in a particular field or a particular way.
New York v. United States
Facts
Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which required states to create facilities to dispose of the radioactive waste generated in the states and provided incentives for states to do so: (1) Congress let states with disposal states charge a surcharge to process waste from states without a disposal system, part of which is collected by the Secretary of Energy and disbursed to states that develop waste disposal sites, (2) allowing states that had disposal sites to charge “progressively higher fees to process” waste from states without a disposal system and eventually stop allowing states without disposal sites from using theirs, and (3) a take title provision which required states, if asked, to take title of waste generators made and pay damages to the generators for any harm resulting from the state not taking title. Petitioners sued under the Guarantee Clause and the Tenth Amendment saying Congress couldn’t direct state regulation of radioactive waste disposal.\
New York v. United States
Reasoning
The Court applied the factors from Dole. Tenth Amendment - Congress may use a variety of methods to urge states to adopt legislation that conforms with federal interests, but it may not compel states to do so. If this happens, state officials may bear the brunt of negative public opinion of the law even though federal officials created and enforced it. The first set of incentives were within Congress’s power to offer incentives, collect taxes and burden interstate commerce for a clear intent. The second set does not take choice away from the state’s citizens because they may choose to regulate the waste themselves or follow federal regulations. The third set of incentives forced the state to comply with federal law no matter what and thus was beyond Congress’s power
Guarantee Clause - The first two sets of incentives do not affect’s New York’s ability to govern as it wishes.
New York v. United States
Two Approaches to the 10th Amendment
- Is an Act of Congress “authorized by one of the powers delegated to Congress in Article I?” If the act rests on one of the enumerated powers, nothing is left for the state. If the act does not rest on an enumorated power, Congress does not have the authority to act (majority)
- Does an act of Congress “invade the province of state sovereignty reserved by the 10th Amendment?” There is a “core of sovereignty retained by the States under the 10th Amendment.” (dissent)
Printz v. United States
Congress may not compel state officials to participate in the administration of federal programs. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required everyone who wanted to by a gun to have a background check and required state police to do them until a federal system was set up. Plaintiffs said this was unconstitutional because it compelled state officers to act. SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional because of New York. Historically, Congress didn’t compel state officers to enforce federal law. Also, the executive branch is supposed to enforce laws, so Congress delegating that power to the states would diminish the president’s power and cause a separation of powers issue.
Reno v. Condon
Congress may regulate states’ activities, using its Commerce Clause powers, provided that the regulation does not require the state to enact any laws or regulations and does not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals. Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act to prevent DMVs and private entities from selling people’s personal information. Plaintiffs sued saying the act violated the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. The Court said personal information was an article of interstate commerce and so within Congress’s Commerce Clause Power.
Testa v. Katt
A state court may not refuse to enforce federal law. A section of the Emergency Price Control Act said a suit under it could be brought under any court. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island said it couldn’t award damages because it was a “foreign” “penal” law. SCOTUS said when Congress passes a law, it applies to all states and people. This comes from the Supremacy Clause rather than commandeering.
