Limits on State Regulatory and Taxing Powers Flashcards
Supremacy Clause
=If there is a conflict between federal and state law, the federal law controls and the state law is invalidated because federal law is supreme.
Prememption
1) Implied Preemption
2) Express Preemption
3) Conflict Preemption
4) Impediment Preemption
5) Field Preemption
Implied Preemption
=Implied by congressional intent
=Valid federal law overrides state law.
1) Conflict Preemption:
==Florida Lime (CA Avacado case)
===Ca state law prohibited importing avacados based on oil content. Federal government didn’t gauge avacado standards based on oil content.
===Held: If federal law sets minimum standards then a state law making stricter standards is not trumpted. Here it is possible to comply with both laws. The federal standard is the floor, then the state can make higher regulations. But if federal standard is a ceiling, state cannot go over.
Express Preemption
=Implied by congressions intent
=Valid federal law overrides state law
=When Congress chooses to expressly preempt state law, the only question for courts becomes determining whether the challenged state law is one that federal law is intended to preempt
Impediment Preemption
=State law that doesn’t directly conflict but impedes federal law. Courts must determine that federal objective and decide the point at which state regulations unduly interfere with achieving the goal.
=PG&E v. State Energy
==Facts: federal law that governed the regulations of safety concerning nuclear power plants, did not preempt (trump) state law, which placed a delay on construction of nuclear power plants within CA.
==State law is trumped if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. However, the Supreme Court will not interfere where there is a permissible and good basis for the state law. (safety concerns)
Field Preemption
=So substantially regulated or assigned and Congress has legislatd so much that it has taken over an entire area of law.
= Congress has left no room for thee states to supplements any laws.
= Ex: Immigration, Nuclear Safety, Naturalizations, Deportation, Foreign Affairs.
Dormant Commerce Clause
=Although not expressly laid out in the, this is a critical area of con law. The Court has established that the Commerce Clause is not only a “positive” grant of power to Congress, but it is also a “negative” constraint upon the States.
= The principle that state and local laws are unconstitutional if they place an undue burden on interstate commerce.
= If Congress has not enacted legislation in a particular area. the states are free to regulate, as long as the state statutes.
==1) do not discriminate against out of state commerce (unless the state is acting as a marketing participant rather than a regulator);
==2) do not unduly burden interstate commerce; and
==3)do not regulate extraterritorial (wholly of state) authority
Modern Dormant Commerce Clause Q1
Q1: Does the State law discriminate against the interstate commerce?
=A) Facially discriminatory
==Invalid- unless necessary for state
==Philadelphia v. NJ: a law that overtly blocks the flow of interestate commerce of a state’s border. NJ enacted a law prohibiting importation of waster from other states.
==Held: unduly burdens interstate commerce.
=B) Discriminatory purpose (faciallly neutral)
==Out of staters are treated differently than in staters.
==EX: mil sellers charge more to out of staters.
—What is the law?
—-Why not discriminatory?
=C) Discriminatory effect (facially neutral)
==Ex: all trucks must have a certain mud flap going through a state, burdens interstate commerce by drivers having to change when coming through. Doesn’t distinguish between in state and out of staters. Balancing test of the benefit of the state.
Modern Dormant Commerce Clause Q2A
=General Approach: Dean Milk Co v. City of Madison (1951)
==Illustrates the rigoroous scrutiny used when laws are deemed discriminatory
==The section in issue makes it unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized unless it has been processed and bottled at an approved pasteurization plant within a radius of five miles from the Central Square of Madison.
==Regulation must yeild to the principle that “one state in its dealings with another may not place itself in a position of economic isolatino.
=What could overcome the presumption of invalidity? Maine v. Taylor
==If facially discriminatory-we can overcome the presumption if there is no other way to overcome state interests in a less burdensome way - the way Ct has balanced it: if it seems protectionist against the market, we need evidence.
==State has the burden of showing that the law both serves a legit purpose and that the purpose can’t be achieved by available non-discriminatory means.
Modern Dormant Commerce Clause Q2A
=General Approach: Dean Milk Co v. City of Madison (1951)
==Illustrates the rigoroous scrutiny used when laws are deemed discriminatory
==The section in issue makes it unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized unless it has been processed and bottled at an approved pasteurization plant within a radius of five miles from the Central Square of Madison.
==Regulation must yeild to the principle that “one state in its dealings with another may not place itself in a position of economic isolatino.
=What could overcome the presumption of invalidity? Maine v. Taylor
==If facially discriminatory-we can overcome the presumption if there is no other way to overcome state interests in a less burdensome way - the way Ct has balanced it: if it seems protectionist against the market, we need evidence.
==State has the burden of showing that the law both serves a legit purpose and that the purpose can’t be achieved by available non-discriminatory means.
DCC Q2B Analysis when Not discriminatory
=Pike v. Bruce Chruch
==Provision says, “all cantaloupes grown in Arizonz and offered for sale must be packed in regular compact arrangement…”
==Prohibited transport of unpacked melons from AZ to CA
==Rule: Where the statutes regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly execessive in relation to the putative local benefit.
==If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the questions becomes one of degree.
=Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines
==Truck flap case- it would cause traffice delay if some had to change the flaps when entering from one state to the other.
Summary of DCC Test
1) Pursue a legitimate state purpose
2)be rationally related to that objective; and
3)balancing by the court must show that the burden imposed by the state on interstate commerce must be outweighed by the state’s interest in enforcing its regulation. courts will consider whether the state interest could have been equally served by a regulation with lesser import on commerce.
==If Discriminatory: INVALID unless no less discriminatory means to advance a legitimate state interest; virtually per se rule.
==If NOT Discriminatory: VALID unless burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.
Summary of DCC Test
1) Pursue a legitimate state purpose
2) be rationally related to that objective; and
3) balancing by the court must show that the burden imposed by the state on interstate commerce must be outweighed by the state’s interest in enforcing its regulation. courts will consider whether the state interest could have been equally served by a regulation with lesser import on commerce.
Privileges and Immunities Clause
=Interpreted as limiting the ability of states to discriminate against out of staters with regards to constitutional rights or important economic activities.
=Article IV, Sec. 2 - “citizens of each state shall be entitlted to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states” - Supreme Court has interpreted this as limiting the ability of a state to discriminate against out of staters with regard to fundamental rights or important economic activities.
=Dormant commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities overlap; both can be used to challenge state laws, yet there are differences:
==P&I Cluase can only be used if out of staters are discriminated
==DCC can challenge burden on interestate commerce (exceptions to DCC also do not apply in P&IC)
=Analysis
1) Has the State discriminated against out of staters with regard to privileges and immunities that it benefits its own citizens?
2) If there is discrimination, is there a sufficient justification for the discrimination.
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
The Text of the Constitution contains few provisions concerning individual liberties. Most of our liberties are in the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments- first 8 refer to protection of individual rights.
Application of Bill or Rights to the states: 3 theories)
Pre-Civil War
There are several ways the Bill of rights could apply:
=Baron v. Baltimore (1833)
==We apply same rules to localities/cities as we would to the State.
==If federal gov’t has done what Baltimore, would it be a violation? YES, violates 5th Amendments.
==Barron sued the city for taking proprty without just compensation in violation of the 5th amendment Taking Clause (taking of property without just compensation) of ruining wharf and making the water too shallow.
==Amendments to the constitution were intended as limitations solely on the exercise of power by the federal government and are not applicable to the states. Bill of Rights were inteded to be limitations on the federal government.
Due Process Incorporation
Most of the rights protected against federal infringement by the Bills of Rights are also “incorporated” into the 14th amendment so that they also apply to state and local governments.
Twinning v. NJ
=Incorporation tells us that whenever you take away a fundamental principle liberty you have to have a compelling reason to do it or it is not fair. Violation of due process.
=Incorporation makes the 14th Amendment “Liberty” = hyperlink to Bill of Rights
==No State shall depreive citizens of the amendments of the BOR
===McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
===DC v. Heller - Individual right to have a handgun ownership in the home for protections (2nd Amendment) ** only way to protect this is by incorporating it in DC
===Why does it limit the action of states? Whats the reasoning?–> Fundamental/Deeply rooted in Country’s tradition-should be incorporated as limits on the states as well. Rights that are in the the BOP are essential to our self understanding of our entity.
===Denial by Chicago or state of the right to own a gun for self-defense is a deprivation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Provisions not incoporated
3rd (soldiers)
5th (grand jury)
7th (civil jury)
8th (excessive fines)
State Action Doctrine
Private Conduct does not have to comply with the Constitution.
Government action must be present for us to find a constitutional violation.
State actors are limited within the constitution (E.G. any member of executive, legislature, or judicial branch, state or federal , and local entities.
Civil Rights Cases: United States v. Stanley of 1875
=Prohibition on racial discrimination of places of accommodation for public accommodations. (private property open to the public)
=Has to address that if its a private facility that’s open to the public, it needs to be open without discrimination.
=Equal Protection Clause is only in the 14th Amendment - ( we forgot when it was written to include federal government can’t discriminate on the basis of race)
=Congress tried to limit the Stat’es rules (Federalism-states can write anti-discriminatory laws)
=why can the constitution prohibit bad government action? Constitution only restricts states so congressional can only restrict bad government action not private actions. Because of the test of the 14th Amendment, an individual cannot violate 14th Amendment, only a state/gov’t can.
Triggered when a private actor harms someone in such a way that a constitutional issue would arise if the harm were inflicted by a gov actor.
Private Uses: Exceptions: Performing a task that has been exclusively and traditionally performed by the government.
State Action Requirement
P must be able to argue that the private party’s actions are sufficiently permeated with state action to make the Constitution applicable.
Key Question When is there enough of a connection between the private actor and the gov for the Court to treat the private actor as if s/he is the equivalent of a govt actor?
==Factors- reliance (to what extent does the private actor rely on gov assistance and benefits). function (whethere the actor is performing a traditional government function that’s been engaged in exclusively by the gov.) and aggravation (whether the injury caused is aggravated in a unique way by government intervention)
Public Function Exception:
=Company towns (everything is owned by one company)
==In Marsh v. Alabama, a private company owned an entire town and posted signs prohibiting peddlers. Supreme Court ruled that although privately owned, the town was so much like a city that it was declared one. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Held to the standards of governmental entity.
=Elections
== In Smith v. Allwright, the Court held that since elections were exclusively public functions, a political party could not radically discriminate against blacks by excluding them from voting in a primary election.
The Entanglement Exception ( alot of intertwined public and private actions)
=Private Conduct must comply with the constitution if the government has authorized encouraged or facilitated the unconstitutional conduct.
=Significant state involvement
==where there is “significant state involvement” in private discrimination, then the 14th amendment may be applicable.
==For ex: restaurant owner whose business was located in a building owned by the city was prohibited from discriminating against racial minority.
== Shelley v. Kramer: State court enforcement of racially restictive convenants was held ton constitute sufficient state involvement to trigger “state action:. Racially discriminatory contract but once they bring it to court to have judge sign, it becomes a violation.
Entanglement = No significant state imvovlement
=Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison: Termination of service to a customer without notice or a hearing by a utility compandy under heavy state regulation was found not to constitute “state action”. when private companies only take up some characteristics of state.
Preemptory Challenge:
=Removing a member of a jury based on race
=In a civil case, requiring a State Jury (Lugar Two - Part Test pg 574)
==Can we fairly ways that private actor is taking a role as a state actor?
==Can we failry say that private actor is taking a roles as a state actor?
