Final 1 Flashcards
Garcia v San Antonio
o Congress passes the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has minimum wage and overtime protections. Metro Transit Authority does not want to comply with these requirements and argues it’s a traditional governmental function so immune.
o Traditional Test: whether or not the federal action operated in an area of “traditional local government function.”
o Holding: Not immune.
• The test is whether the enforcement of the act is destructive of state sovereignty or violates any constitutional provision or is not passed in furtherance of a delegated power.
• New York v. United States (68)
o Holding: The federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, like the “take title” nuclear waste program.
• Problem: Federalism (oversteps federal-state co-sovereignty)
• Does Congress have the power to deal with low-level waste nationwide? No.
• This action commandeers state governments into service of federal regulatory purposes, inconsistent with division of authority
• Cannot command states to initiative legislation (not properly conditional, not under commerce or spending, instead it’s a threat)
• United States v. Lopez (69)
o Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 prevents carrying a gun near school or federal criminal law violation.
o Court holds that there are three broad categories of things that can fall within the commerce power:
• Channels of interstate commerce
• Instrumentalities of interstate commerce
• Substantial relationship to interstate commerce (affecting interstate commerce)
• For Commercial Activity: It doesn’t matter whether this particular instance of activity directly affects interstate commerce, as long as it is part of a general class that collectively substantially affects it
• For Non-Commercial Activity: Must have an obvious connection between the activity and the commerce
o Holding: The Act is unconstitutional because it doesn’t substantially affect interstate commerce. Possessing a gun is not interstate commerce.
• States have a right to pass a law like the Gun Free Act, but the federal government does NOT have the right.
o Rule: There are limits upon how far Congress can go in passing Acts regulating interstate commerce
o Court holds that there are three broad categories of things that can fall within the commerce power:
- Channels of interstate commerce
- Instrumentalities of interstate commerce
- Substantial relationship to interstate commerce (affecting interstate commerce)
- For Commercial Activity: It doesn’t matter whether this particular instance of activity directly affects interstate commerce, as long as it is part of a general class that collectively substantially affects it
- For Non-Commercial Activity: Must have an obvious connection between the activity and the commerce
• Printz v. United States (73)
Brady Acto
Brady Act (federal law) made anyone buying a gun subject to a background check. It required local law enforcement officers to perform background checks on applicants for handgun permits (extra work for the state).
o Holding: The Act is commandeering state officials- the FBI should be doing the checks, not state police.
o Rule: The federal government can’t command state or local government executives to enforce a federal program; infringes upon right of locality to exercise its own sovereignty
• South Dakota v. Dole (87)
o Federal highway funds were withheld from states that allowed purchase or possession of alcohol by persons under 21. South Dakota sold alcohol to 19 year olds, and argued the federal statute was unconstitutional.
o Rule: Congress may condition spending as long as:
• 1) It is in pursuit of the general welfare
• 2) Congress conditions states receipt of funds unambiguously
• 3) It is not coercive- Congress can’t use the spending power to compel, but may use it to encourage states to do something with monetary incentives
o Holding: The statute is constitutional. Congress has acted indirectly under its spending power to encourage uniformity in states drinking ages.
• Condition is directly related to safe interstate travel, which is a general welfare interest of the country (discourages drinking and driving).
• All power over local governments rests in the absolute discretion of
the state can destroy charters without consent
o Federal Constitution provides NO protection
• State constitutions can create more protection for
municipal corporations
o Example: Michigan
o Article 7, Section 22 deals with cities and villages
• Electors have the free ability to adopt and amend its charter which was granted by the state
• Each city shall have the power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns (general grant of power to incorporated cities)
• However, still subject to the constitution and law
• So, in Michigan, a legislative act can limit or eliminate the power in Michigan
o Article 7, Section 21 deals with incorporation of municipalities
• Says that legislature shall supply for the incorporation of cities and villages
• Directs the legislature to set up a general incorporation law and include requirements for incorporation.
• Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council (104)
o In 1996, the Massachusetts Burma Law,
o Held: that the state Act is preempted and its application unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
• Massachusetts’ law created an obstacle to the President’s discretion to have flexible and effective authority over economic sanctions with Burma
• Here, Expressly Preempted– invalid under the Supremacy Clause…owing to its threat of frustrating federal statutory objectives.
• If not express, still 2 circumstances when state law must yield to congressional act:
o When congress intends federal law to “occupy the field”
o If not occupied the field, preemption to extent of any conflict with federal statute
• “will find preemption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal law”
• Shad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim (130)
defining the community
o Rule: If a zoning law infringes on protected liberty (the speech here is conceded to be protected), it must be:
• Narrowly draw, AND
• Further a substantial governmental interest
o The interest asserted here is to “preserve the area to serve the immediate needs of the residents, and to reduce problems such as parking and trash and other effects that occur if there is live entertainment.
o The Court holds that this is not sufficient, and the ordinance is struck down
o Community Restrictions on Nude Dancing etc.
• Playtime held that restricting locations of adult theatres within 1000 feet of a residential zone is okay because of secondary effects.
o Constitutes a reasonable time, place, and manner exception.
o This is only true if there is the opportunity to make the speech SOMEWHERE.
• Barnes held that a state public indecency statute requiring dancers to wear pasties and g-string does not violate First Amendment.
• Alameda Books upheld ordinance that prohibited the establishment or maintenance of more than one adult entertainment business in the same building.
o Remember that you can regulate because of secondary effects
• Increase in crime in area around business, increase in blight, reduction in property values-must be factually established or by expert testimony
o Here, reduces crime after a study that city conducted concluded that concentrations of adult businesses are associated with higher crime rates.
• D & M Country Estates v. Romriell (138)
o Here, the property owner wants to convert the property into a group home. The neighbors object on the grounds that there are restrictive covenants on the land, which occurred when the original developer came up with a master plan.
o State law says that “it is the policy of this state that elderly citizens are entitled to live in normal residential subdivision.”
o The Court holds that this statute cannot be said to be intended to affect any private contracts or property rights of parties.
o Therefore, this would have constituted a taking by the legislature and therefore these covenants are upheld
o What if the ordinance had INCLUDED private deeds?
• Would have constituted a taking without just compensation
• Remember, this is a real “stick” out of the bundle, and therefore is a true property interest.
Definiton of family
o It seems that the statement that “housing up to eight unrelated adults in an institutionalized setting violates the restriction against use by more than two families” turns heavily on the definition of “family.”
o Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (142)
- Defines family as “one or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants.”
- SCOTUS upheld the ordinance as a permissible exercise of zoning power because laying out zones where “family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people” is a permissible exercise of police power.
Moore v city of east cleveland
- Defines family as “a number of individuals related to the nominal head of the household or to his/her spouse living together as a single housekeeping unit in a single dwelling unit.”
- Court invalidated this because it limited class of “families” to only a few categories of related individuals.
- Says that it treaded upon the basic right to cohabitate with family members, which necessitated a compelling state interest.
o Poletown Neighborhood Council v City of Detroit (144)
• Brief Fact Summary. A city condemned private property in order to give it to a corporation so jobs would not be lost.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Condemnation for the public welfare cannot be forbidden, even if there is incidental private gain.
Facts. High unemployment exists in the City of Detroit (Defendant). General Motors decided to end its manufacturing operations in the city. If they left, the unemployment numbers would substantially increase, and then the city would lose millions of dollars in real estate and income tax revenues. General Motors made an overture to the city about finding a suitable plant site in the city. A site was found, and the city used the power of eminent domain to evict the residents from their homes. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of using the power of eminent domain to condemn one person’s property to convey it to a private person.
Court held that the state had proper authority and proper public purpose to condemn 400 acres of Poletown for a GM plant. A proper public purpose was served because it created jobs and benefited the region as a whole.
• GM threatened to leave without land, city depended on GM economically, paid $62 million to those displaced
• Which community should have been entitled to make the decision of whether these costs were worth incurring? (human, neighborhood, financial)
• Residents of Poletown or Detroit? Employees of GM?
• If a city council believes the city as a whole would be better off favoring GM over displaced residents, (why) should a court second guess?
• Kramer v. Union Free School District (148)
o City limited the population that could vote in school district election to only those who owned taxable real property.
o Holding: The statute was not sufficiently tailored to meet the state interest, since its classification excluded residents of the school district who had direct interest in school board elections.
• Cipriano v. City of Houma (149)
o City limited population that could vote in elections to approve issuance of revenue bonds to those who owned taxable real property.
o Holding: The statute was invalidated because may people who don’t own real property have a recognizable interest in the issuance of revenue bonds.
• Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa (148)
o Holt is a small rural community on the outskirts of Tuscaloosa. Holt residents are subject to Tuscaloosa’s “police jurisdiction”, sanitary regulations, and business requirements under AL statute. Holt residents are upset because they can’t vote on these provisions that have power over their community.
o Holt residents filed suit, claiming that Tuscaloosa’s extraterritorial exercise of police powers denies residents their 14th Amendment franchise rights.
o Rule: A governmental unit may restrict the right to participate in its political processes (vote) to those who reside within its borders. This doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment.
o Holding: Holt residents are only subject to the specific authority of the city (the police powers), so they don’t enjoy the same right to vote since they are not subject to ALL of the authority of the city.
Moorman v wood
o This deals with an annexation issue (state law). The state legislature of Kentucky amends the state annexation law to allow another adjoining community to annex a part of an existing municipality and that only the area being annexed has a right to vote on that question. Adjoining city began annexing Fort Wright (which at the time was part of the city of Covington).
• The people of Fort Wright overwhelmingly approved de-annexation.
• Citizens of Covington respond that this denies the right of all other residents of Covington to vote on the de-annexation measure.
o Court holds that in all “voting rights” cases, it is clear that the right to vote can be limited to the residents of the governmental unit or areas concerned.
• Since “voting rights” are not concerned here (because people in the area concerned did actually vote), the test is rational basis.
o Rule: There is no property right/liberty interest in living within a particular political subdivision (Hunter v. City of Pittsburg)
o Holding: The annexation is enforceable. The Constitution is silent on the subjects of consolidating metropolitan governments and decentralizing governments of small towns, so it cannot be struck down.
• There is a rational basis AND a compelling state interest in the state moving to adopt this annexation under the circumstances.
• Hunter v. Pittsburgh (163)
o Rule: There is no property right/liberty interest in living within a particular political subdivision
o Limitations on state power: actions cannot infringe upon constitutionally (fed or state) protected right or statutory right
o Localities possessed no 14th Amendment rights against their creator the state.
n 1906, Pennsylvania passed a law permitting the joining of adjacent municipalities if, during an election regarding the issue, the majority of all votes passed approve the union. Subsequently, the City of Pittsburgh filed in state court to begin the process of an election regarding joining with the City of Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Allegheny pushed back but was turned down in court. The election was allowed to continue, and a majority of all voters within the two cities combined voted for joining. However, a vast majority of voters in Allegheny voted in opposition; thus, most of the votes in favor came from Pittsburgh. But because the majority of the total votes were in favor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled the union constitutional under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiffs appealed under the United States Constitution Article 1 section 10 paragraph 1 (contract clause) and Amendment 14 (due process clause).
Gomillion v Lightfoot
o Act redraws the boundaries of Tuskegee, which would exclude the black population from voting in city elections. A group of black citizens filed suit, claiming that the Act is their 14th and 15th Amendment rights.
o Rule: The city cannot take an action that infringes upon a constitutional right of its citizens.
o Holding: The Act violates the provision of the 15th Amendment, which prohibits states from denying anyone their right to vote on account of race.
o Concurring: The Act violates the 14th Amendment rights to Due Process and Equal Protection, rather than the 15th Amendment.
A municipal corporation is
is the legal term for a local governing body, including (but not necessarily limited to) cities, counties, towns, townships, charter townships, villages, and boroughs. The term can also be used to describe municipally owned corporations.[1][2][3]
Municipal incorporation
occurs when such municipalities become self-governing entities under the laws of the state or province in which they are located. Often, this event is marked by the award or declaration of a municipal charter. A city charter or town charter or municipal charter) is a legal document establishing a municipality such as a city or town.[citation needed]
• Municipal Incorporation Generally
o Lets community articulate its distinct preferences with regard to local services
o Residents may seek incorporation because:
- 1) They want to increase municipal services
- 2) They want to regulate conditions in the environment within the community boundaries (traffic, business, property conditions)
- 3) There are assets in the community that residents want to have for their own use, and don’t want others outside of the boundaries to control them
Criteria for incorporation
- Usually includes a finding that there is a “community” that has sufficient common interest to warrant its recognition as a separate entity
- Community must be able to be self-sufficient with respects to the kinds of good and services typically identified with local government:
- Utilities
- Educational facilities
- Public amenities
Process for MI
- Residents agree upon boundaries
- Residents must create a petition, signed by certain percentage of residents within the area
- Area must meet requirements set by agency to be incorporated
- Agency of state government- State Boundary Commission
- Existing agency- AG’s office, SOS’s office
- State circuit court
- A referendum is conducted within geographic area for formal adoption/rejection of incorporation
• Municipal Incorporation in MI
o If there are more than 150 residents and at least 100 persons/ sq. mi.→ qualify for incorporation as a village
o More than 750 residents → qualify as village or city
• City has more powers available to it than a village
o What happens when an existing city falls below the standards required for incorporation?
• There is no way a city like Highland Park could become incorporated if they applied today.
o Solutions:
• State can merge Highland Park with Detroit
• State can appoint an emergency financial manager
• City can file for bankruptcy with the approval of the state
• Problems with bankruptcy:
o Adversely affects credit rating of state and city, which limits their ability to borrow money in the future and increases interest rates
o Mayor and Council stay intact (unlike with an Emergency Financial Manager)
o Very hard to continue operations
o Creates a stigma for the residents of the city
How to establish a MI
In the United States, such municipal corporations are established by charters that are granted either directly by a state legislature by means of local legislation, or indirectly under a general municipal corporation law, usually after the proposed charter has passed a referendum vote of the affected population.[citation needed]
• Incorporation of Borough of Glen Mills (192)
o Private school in Delaware County on 1 sq. mi. of land applied to have itself incorporated as a borough.
• Approving agency- Court of Common Pleas
• If school is incorporated, there will be areas that will become segregated from other areas of the township (because school is not located on a boundary)
o Rule: When considering whether to incorporate an area, the court must follow a rule of reason and consider factors beyond specific criteria, such as whether or not other areas of the township will become isolated.
o Holding: The court denied the petition for incorporation because it would isolate other areas of the township
• Citizens of Rising Sun v. Rising Sun Development Committee (198)
o Area in Iowa seeking to be incorporated so that they have more control over their community.
o Issue: Upon incorporation, will it be able to provide basic local services to the residents of the incorporated area?
• Area argues that they will contract out with other adjoining local governmental units (actually, the same ones they currently use) to get police, fire, etc.
o Rule: An area seeking incorporation needs a certain amount of capacity and can’t simply contract out for every service needed.
o Holding: This is a sham- the area has not met the criteria required by the agency in Iowa
• Special Purpose Units of Local Government/Special District
o An agency created by state law that performs additional functions at the local level or across local boundaries; it supplements, not replaces local powers
o Special purpose governments (like school, water and development districts) have only one or two purposes
• Park systems
• Development boards
o They are established under state law, where the state legislature establishes the purpose and authority of the government
• Some are controlled by elected representatives
• Some boards are appointed
o Granted limited governmental authority: power to incur debt, set user fees, levy taxes, receive funds from state and federal government, eminent domain
• Operationally and financially independent
• 4 Ways to create a special purpose government:
o General act of the state legislature that grants counties or municipalities the authority to create special governments either singly or in combination with another local government
o Special act of the legislature
o General act of the legislature allowing the electorate of a region to authorize creation
o By executive order if the executive is authorized by the state legislature
• Rights of the local electorate to vote for the board
o There is no right to vote if the legislature determines that the board will be appointed
o However, if the state grants an elected structure, then the principle of one man, one vote is at play (cite Avery)
o Real question is when can you exclude some people?
• Salyer Court has held that voting could be limited to landowners when the district involved benefits landowners.
• Look to narrow purpose
• Ball: Here at issue what a right to vote for directors of an agricultural improvement district. The statute here limits the votes in accordance with the number of acres owned. The Court held that the district fell w/in the Salyer exception because it was a narrow purpose.
• Must be pretty narrow to fit within the Salyer exception
o ALWAYS look to both State and Federal Constitutions when making these arguments.
o City wants a waste disposal sight to be part of the city so they can control it, but wants it located outside the city. Needs written consent of landowners.
o Don’t have power of eminent domain outside of your city.
o Annexation must satisfy “contiguity” (state statute) and the ‘rule of reason’- areas being annexed must be contiguous with the annexor. NO SWISS CHEESE.
• But, state court will uphold the annexation if procedures have been complied with- strong policy towards allowing annexation of unincorporated areas.
• Annexation is always favored.
• Annexation Procedures:
o 1) By petition of affected landowners o 2) By municipal ordinance o 3) By judicial determination o 4) By independent/appointed elected boundary review boards o 5) By legislative action
• Who Reviews City Actions?
o Boundary commission
o Local government
o Local Court
• Arguments for Annexation where annexes do not consent:
o It would allow municipalities superior services to the area to be annexed
o The municipality needs to grow as its population increases
o The municipality has an interest in maintaining adequate zoning and regulation at the urban fringe
o Non-residents who work, shop and entertain themselves in the city should be required, as are city residents, to contribute to the maintenance of the city
• Bunch v. City of Jackson (1997)
o City of Jackson wants to annex 25 mi of land contiguous to Jackson to increase the tax base and expand industrial and commercial uses.
o Problem: Jackson already has 40 mi of vacant land.
- Cons of urban sprawl:
- Requires an investment of infrastructure outside the city
- Takes away farmland
- Development is not subsidized, as it is inside the city
- Pros of developing land outside boundaries:
- It is farmland owned by a small number of owners, to it will be easier to deal with than trying to develop vacant land in the city with hundreds of owners
- Costs of returning land inside the city boundaries to its natural state is very expensive
o Rule: Court must consider whether it is ‘reasonable’ to annex land outside of the city. Annexation is reasonable if-
• 1) Municipality needs to expand
• 2) The area sought to be annexed is within a path of growth of the city
• 3) There are no potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal in annexed areas
• 4) Municipality has the financial ability to make improvements and provide municipal services to annexed area
• 5) There won’t need to be much re-zoning or overall planning
• 6) Consider need for municipal services in the area
• 7) Consider natural barriers between city and annexation area
• 8) Consider past performance and time element involved in the city’s provision of services to its present residents
• 9) Consider economic or other impact of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in proposed annexation area
• 10) Consider impact of annexation on voting strength of minority groups
• 11) Consider likelihood of annexation by other areas
o Holding: Annexing the land is NOT reasonable because there are 40 miles of the current city that are vacant, so the city should just develop this instead of annexing new land.
• Town of Mt. Pleasant v. City of Racine (1964)
o Developer wants to annex land outside the City so that it can take advantage of city services.
o Rule: The area to be annexed must be contiguous to the annexor (the City).
o Holding: Annexation does not meet the statutory requirement of contiguity
• Secession and Disannexation
o Secession: attempts by one part of an established locality to secede from the larger body; must follow proper procedures (not inherent; state approval needed)
• Pros- appropriate where the land in question doesn’t receive any services from the municipality
• Cons- if wealthier portions of the municipality are annexed, the remainder of the locality is left with an impoverished tax base
Voting rights act of 1965
o Intended to protect the right of minority citizens to vote
• Issue: Is there an intention to cause a detrimental effect on minority citizens’ voting rights?
o §5: Prohibits a covered state/ political subdivision from modifying any law, practice, or procedure that affects voting UNLESS it has permission from the U.S. Attorney General or the federal district court of D.C.
• Applicant must prove that the changes in voting procedure don’t have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote due to race.
• Applicant must also demonstrate an absence of discriminatory purpose.
o §2: Used to have same language as 15th Amendment; now, it is used for racial vote dilution litigation instead of §5
• But under §2, BOP is with the challenger and no proof of discriminatory purpose is required (unlike §5)
• State’s Plenary Power
o Local units of government have no inherent power of their own- they derive all of their power from a delegation of state power to be exercised at the local level
• Powers received by the state legislature flow through state constitution to local units of government
• Local Autonomy: the extent to which localities can implement policies unencumbered by the effects of their choices on others
o What is the scope of the grant of power for the local authority / state limitation
- If there is a HOME RULE provision in the state constitution, there will be a broad grant of power.
- Does the power granted to the city give them the right to initiate action?
- Once having initiated the action, is it immune from interference by state law?
- If there is NO general power, must find a SPECIAL grant of power.
- Dillon’s Rule: special grants of power should be strictly construed; municipal corporations have no inherent power
- Limitations on State Legislative Powers
- 1) Ripper Clauses
- 2) Special/Local Laws
• MI Home Rule Provisions
o MI Constitution (Art. VII, §21): legislature shall provide general laws for the incorporation of cities and villages
• Laws shall limit rate of ad valorem taxation for municipal purposes, and restrict the powers of cities and villages to borrow money and contract debts
• Cities and villages can levy other taxes for public purposes
o MI Constitution (Art. VII, §22): each city and village has the power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to municipal concerns, property, and government SUBJECT TO the constitution and law
• City Charter sets up local units of government
• Sanitation District No. 1 of Shelby County v. Shelby County (250) o State passed an act giving the fiscal court (a sub-unit of government within a county) additional powers over the sanitation district.
Home rule provision
o State constitutions are documents of limitation, while the federal Constitution is a document of grant.
• Eminent domain: state can take property for economic development; flows through; not limited by state constitution
• Home rule provision: direct grant of authority from state constitution that can’t be infringed upon by acts of legislature
o Holding: Although the act results in a significant shift in authority between the Sanitation District and the Fiscal Court, there is nothing in the state constitution prohibiting this transfer of power.
o Rule: The Legislature may transfer the power and duties of one body of local officers to another local body (what the legislature has created, the legislature can modify)
• Local Option Legislation
o Local option: legislature has shared power with localities
- legislature enacts laws, and the local voters elect whether the state laws will take effect within their communities
• Ex: Local sales taxes, whether a municipality will allow gambling
• By allocating decisionmaking responsibility to localities, the state legislature can deflect animosity without being accused of an unwillingness to address the issue at all (passing the buck
