Federalism (Module 5) Flashcards
10th Amendment
1) state police powers
2) anti-commandeering principle
State Police Power (10th Amendment)
States have general police powers to regulate health, safety, and welfare of their people
If regulations don’t burden fundamental rights or involve quasi-/suspect classifications they will get rational basis
Federal Tax/Reg of State Gov (Anti-Commandeering Principle)
10th Amendment
Congress can’t commandeer states by:
1) requiring them to enact state laws or to enforce federal laws, or
2) exempting private sector from a tax/regulate and only apply to the public sector (but if applies equally it’s valid)
Exceptions to 10th Amend Anti-Commandeering Principle
1) non-coercive spending conditions under Congress power to tax/spend for the general welfare
- grants of money to the state with “strings attached” doesn’t have to be coercive (incentivize, not compel)
2) civil rights
- under 14th congress can restrict states from discriminating/depriving DP rights
State Tax/Regulation of Fed Gov
Intergovernmental Immunity
States can’t interfere/control federal operations by regulating fed gov/agents while they perform federal functions
(ex. requiring soldier to have a driver’s license to drive a military vehicle in the state)
BUT: nondiscriminatory, indirect taxes are ok
(ex. state income tax on federal employees)
Express Preemption
Because of Supremacy Clause, federal law can supersede or preempt state or local laws
Express preemption is when federal law expressly says that the state can’t adopt laws concerning the subject matter of the federal legislation
if the federal government adopts legislation that it has the power to adopt, the federal legislation is supreme, and a conflicting state law is rendered invalid (e.g., state passing law in valid exercise of police power will still be superseded)
Types of Implied Preemption
State law will be impliedly preempted if:
1) Conflict
2) Impede
3) Field
NOTE: courts will always start with presumption that state police power is not meant to be be superseded unless it was “clear and manifest purpose of congress”
Conflicts with Federal Law (Implied Preemption)
If it’s not possible to follow both the state/fed law in the same area then state law is preempted
NOTE: courts will always start with presumption that state police power is not meant to be be superseded unless it was “clear and manifest purpose of congress”
Impedes Federal Law (Implied Preemption)
If state/local law impedes federal objectives, even if the state law was enacted for a valid purpose, then the state law will be preempted
NOTE: courts will always start with presumption that state police power is not meant to be be superseded unless it was “clear and manifest purpose of congress”
Field Preemption (Implied Preemption)
A valid federal law may “occupy” the entire field barring any state or local law, even if it is not conflicting; court will look to the regulatory scheme to determine if field has been preempted
(ex. federal laws are very comprehensive, or an agency was created to oversee the area)
NOTE: courts will always start with presumption that state police power is not meant to be be superseded unless it was “clear and manifest purpose of congress”
Interstate Compact Clause
Concerns agreements between states; if the agreement increases states’ power at the expense of federal power then congressional approval is required
Article IV - Privileges/Immunities Clause
Prohibits states from discriminating against nonresidents (corps and aliens not protected) with respect to:
1) important commercial activities
2) fundamental rights
*But only applies if the law is “intentionally protectionist”’
Test for Art. IV P/I Claim
If state law burdens an important comm activity or fundamental right of out of state citizens it will be invalid unless:
1) it is necessary to achieve an important state interest
2) no less restrictive means available
14th Amendment P/I Clause
States cannot deny their OWN citizens the privileges or immunities of NATIONAL citizenship
Corporations are not protected
(e.g., right to vote for federal officers, right to petition Congress for grievances, right to interstate travel)
Dormant Commerce Clause
If congress hasn’t enacted laws regarding the subject, a state/local gov can regulate local aspects of interstate commerce
Will be invalid if the regulation:
1) DISCRIMINATES against interstate commerce by favoring in-state commerce
2) UNDULY BURDENS interstate commerce
Ex. NY can’t ban CA wines or tax them at a higher rate than NY wines
Test for Discriminatory/Unduly Burdensome State Regulations (Dormant Commerce Clause)
Regs that do not treat economic interests from outside the state the same as those inside the state discriminate
1) NECESSARY to achieve IMPORTANT, noneconomic state interest (e.g., health and safety)
2) no rxble alternatives
Test for Nondiscriminatory State Regulations (Dormant Commerce Clause)
A nondiscriminatory state regulation that still affects interstate commerce will be valid unless:
Burden outweighs the legit state interest
*court will consider if less restrictive means available
Exceptions to Discriminatory State Laws Violating Dormant Commerce Clause
1) Congressional Approval
- congress can approve law/reg that would otherwise violate
2) State as “Market Participant”
- when state is not regulating but is directly involved in buying/selling/producing goods & services
- ex. PSE&G prefers to buy supplies, sell supplies, or hire labor from in-state sources; that’s ok
3) Gov performing traditional gov functions
- e.g., waste disposal; idk
Attack for State Regulation Affecting Interstate Commerce
- Is there federal legislation that either:
a) supersedes or preempts the state law?
b) congress authorized the activity explicitly? - If no, does the state reg discriminate/unduly burden interstate commerce?
a) If yes, it will be invalid unless:
> furthers important, noneconomic interest and there are no rxble alternatives, or
> state is acting as a market participant
- If not discriminatory, then will be invalid if the burden on interstate commerce outweighs state interest
21st Amend: State Control over Liquor
State govs have wide latitude over importation of liquor and its sale/use within the state
Power of States to Tax Interstate Commerce
Congress has complete power to authorize/forbid state taxation that affects interstate commerce
Discriminatory Taxes - violate comm clause unless congress authorizes
Nondiscriminatory Taxes - ok if:
1) substantial nexus to the taxing state
2) fair apportionment
3) fair relationship
Privileges AND Immunities v. Privileges OR Immunities Clauses
Privilege AND Immunities Clause
- Article IV
- Prohibits states from denying out-of-state citizens important economic interests
- Only applies to natural persons (i.e., not corps or other groups)
Privileges OR Immunities Clause
- 14th (fOuRteenth) Amendment
- Prohibits states from denying their own citizens fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution (like interstate travel)
Dormant Comm Clause v. Art. IV P/I
DCC: only deals with interstate commerce; much larger scale
- state burdens interstate commerce by favoring in-state over out-of-state
- if not discriminatory, burden must not outweigh state interest
- discriminatory test: furthers important, noneconomic state interest and no rxble alternatives
- applies to U.S. citizens, aliens, and corporations
P/I: only deals with out of state U.S. citizens; specific, smaller scale
- state denies out of state person important economic interest or fundamental right
- if not discriminatory, no issue
- discriminatory test: substantial justification, no less restrictive means
- only applies to natural persons who are U.S. citizens
To Determine if State Law Violates Commerce Clause
1) Does it directly discriminate against out of state citizens (i.e., favor in state business to out of state detriment); if so it violates commerce clause unless meets one of these exceptions:
- congress authorizes it
- state is acting as a market participant (note: congress can say nah to this still)
2) if it doesn’t directly discriminate against out of state/foreign, court will balance the reasoning (is it legit, does it serve useful purpose) against the commerce clause; most of the time it will pass here
