1. Marbury v. Madison, (1803); pg. 2, briefed 9/8/95
2. Facts: Marbury was one of the famous Òmidnight judgesÓ whose commission had been signed by the Secretary of State (Marshall), but had not been delivered before the morning that Jefferson took office.
3. Procedural Posture: Marbury went directly to the Supreme Court to compel Jefferson's Secretary of State (Madison) to deliver their commissions.
4. Issue: Whether the Supreme Court has the power to review the legislative acts of the Congress to determine their constitutionality.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. Majority Reasoning: Marshall stated that Marbury had a right to his commission once it was signed. Further, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the supreme court the right to issue a writ of mandamus against persons holding office. Thus, it would appear that Marbury has a remedy. However, Article III Section 2 of the Constitution states that the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in cases Òaffecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party,Ó and Òin all other cases,...shall have appellate jurisdiction.Ó Since a writ of mandamus is an original action, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act must be contrary to the constitution, because it allows the Supreme Court to hear cases of original jurisdiction for persons besides ministers, consuls and ambassadors, etc. If the constitution is the supreme will of the people to limit government, then the legislature can not alter it at will. Thus, the legislature can not be allowed to pass laws repugnant to the constitution. Since it is the Supreme Court's role to interpret laws and resolve conflicts between competing laws, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and decide if a law passed conflicts with it.
1. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, (1816); pg. 29, briefed, 9/8/95
2. Facts: Fairfax, a British loyalist, owned land in Virginia. A Virginia state law provided for the seizure of Fairfax's lands prior to 1783. Virginia granted the land to Hunter. Martin was the inheritor of the land from Fairfax. Martin claimed that the Peace Treaty of 1783 and the Jay Treaty of 1794 protected the land from seizure.
3. Procedural Posture: The Virginia court, in the original case, found for Hunter The Supreme Court reversed, ordering the Virginia court to enter judgment for Martin under the authority granted by Section 25 of the Judiciary Act which gave the Supreme Court the power to review final decisions of the highest state courts rejecting claims based on federal law. The Virginia state court refused to comply with the order, claiming that Section 25 was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court had no constitutional right to review the final decisions of the state courts. The case is again being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
4. Issue: Whether Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is constitutionally valid, giving the Supreme Court the right to review the final decisions of state courts rejecting claims based on federal law.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. ¸ Argument: Without Supreme Court review of state court decisions, there will be no other mode by which Congress can extend the judicial power of the United States to cases of federal cognizance which arise in the state courts, resulting in non-uniformity of decisions among states.
7. Æ Argument: The constitution does not provide explicitly for Supreme Court review of state court decisions. Since it must have been foreseen by the drafters that conflicts would arise, the omission is evidence that the framers felt that such a powerful tribunal would produce evils greater than those of the occasional collisions which it would be designed to remedy. Thus, once an action is brought in state court, the federal court's sole remedy is to shift it to a lower federal court before it gets to the final court of the state, or simply to advise the high state court that they have improperly interpreted the constitution. The states are dually sovereign with the federal government, and not subject to the laws of Congress which limit their sovereignty.
8. Majority Reasoning: In Article III, the Supreme Court is given the judicial power which Òshall extend to all cases.Ó Thus, it is the nature of the case and not the court of origin that determines whether the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court appellate power is not limited only to cases that come up through the lower federal courts. Also, the Constitution was designed to operate upon the states themselves, and not just the persons within the states. Thus, the states themselves are not equal sovereigns with the federal government, but rather subject to its law-making capability. Furthermore, even if the state courts do not abuse the power of the constitution, they are likely to rule differently on it from state to state. Thus, the need for uniformity in decisions requires an ultimate single court of last resort which exercises review over all states. Lastly, there is substantial historical evidence that the framers intended Supreme Court review of state court decisions, as well as several previous cases which do so.
1. Ex Parte McCardle, (1869); pg. 39, briefed 9/8/95
2. Facts: McCardle was a newspaper publisher in the post-civil war south. He was imprisoned for sedition.
3. Procedural Posture: McCardle brought a habeus corpus act under an Act of Congress of 1867 which authorized the federal courts to grant habeus corpus to anyone restrained Òin violation of the ConstitutionÓ, and gave the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over such actions. However, before it was ruled upon on the merits by the Supreme Court, Congress passed another Act, expressly revoking the appellate jurisdiction for these types of actions that it had previously granted in 1867.
4. Issue: Whether Congress can take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as to habeus corpus acts, which jurisdiction was granted in the 1867 Act.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. ¸ Argument: The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is derived from Article III, Section 2 of the constitution, not from acts of Congress.
7. Majority Reasoning: It is true that the appellate jurisdiction is granted by the constitution, but in the same article, it is made expressly subject to Òsuch exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.Ó Thus, Congress has the power to expand and limit the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Quite simply, Congress was acting clearly within its power in both granting and then repealing the specific jurisdiction to review habeus corpus cases from the Circuit Courts pursuant to the Act of 1867. The Act of 1868 does not affect the appellate jurisdiction with regard to any other cases.
1. United States v. Klein, (1872); pg. 42, briefed 9/10/95
2. Facts: Klein was pardoned by the president for aiding in the civil war rebellion. A statute existed that would allow persons who did not aid in the rebellion to recover land seized from them in the Reconstruction. Previous case law had held that a presidential pardon was conclusive proof that a person had not committed the crime.
3. Procedural Posture: A new statute was enacted by Congress while the Klein case was pending appeal, reversing the previous tradition of a pardon being proof of non-participation, and in fact making it conclusive proof of actual participation. In addition, the statute purported to remove federal court jurisdiction for all such claims arising from pardons.
4. Issue: Whether Congress has the constitutional power to enact a statute which limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, when, by limiting said jurisdiction would dictate the outcome of a particular case.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: Congress has the power under Article III to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts because of the specific language Òwith such exceptions...as the Congress shall make.Ó
7. Æ Argument: Congress does not have the power to dictate the outcome of any particular case because such would be contrary to the separation of powers structure of the Constitution.
8. Majority Reasoning: The statute removing jurisdiction in this instance was unconstitutional because it was only Òa means to an end,Ó to affect the outcome of this particular case. Dismissing the appeal would allow Congress to prescribe the judgments of the Supreme Court directly. The statute prescribed how the court should decide an issue of fact, and it denied effect to a Presidential Pardon, thus violating the separation of powers.
1. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995); pg. 3 supp., briefed 9/10/95
2. Facts: A Securities Act violation was committed. After Supreme Court dismissal of the first action for being brought outside of the statute of limitations, Congress passed a new section 27A to the Securities Exchange Act, extending the statute of limitations in these cases, as well as providing for the ÒreinstatementÓ of causes of action that had been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds during the time of pendency of the first action in this case, thus re-opening the case.
3. Procedural Posture: In the first action, the Supreme Court dismissed the case for being brought outside of the statute of limitations (which it has prescribed in the Rules). Congress' enactment of new section 27A reinstated the action.
4. Issue: Whether Congress can reinstate a case that has been previously dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: Congress has the power under Article III to modify the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which includes statutorily reinstating a class of cases.
7. Æ Argument: Congress' power does not include reinstatement of previously decided cases under new laws.
8. Majority Reasoning: Scalia stated that Article III not only gives the federal judiciary the power to rule on cases, but to decide them, subject only to review by superior courts in the Article III hierarchy. ÒWhen retroactive legislation requires its own application in a case already finally adjudicated, it does no more and no less than `reverse a determination once made, in a particular case.'Ó Such power is clearly contrary to what the framers contemplated in the separation of powers. It did not matter that the statute was with reference to a general class of cases, and not ostensibly to a particular case, if it gave the Congress the power to reinstate a case, it necessarily interfered with the outcome of a particular case.
1. Michigan v. Long (1983); pg. 56, briefed 9/10/95
2. Facts: Long was arrested, and alleged that his search and seizure rights had been violated.
3. Procedural Posture: The Michigan State Supreme Court ruled that the police search did violated the Fourth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution's own search and seizure laws.
4. Issue: Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review state court judgments which concern federal issues, and which are not clearly based on an adequate and independent state law grounds.
5. Holding: Yes. If the state court decision does not] indicate clearly and expressly by means of a Òplain statementÓ that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the state court ruling.
6. Majority Reasoning: O'Connor stated that the Court must assume that there are no adequate grounds when it is not clear from the opinion that there were, and the opinion appears to rest primarily on federal law. It was necessary out of respect for the independence of state courts that the presumption of adequate state grounds go against the states so as to promote clarity, thus avoiding excessive remands and advisory opinions. This promotes uniformity in the states interpretation of federal law.
7. Dissent Reasoning: Stevens stated that it would be better to give the presumption for adequate state grounds to the state, because of historical concerns of judicial restraint. The Supreme Court should not be involved unless there is a reason to vindicate the federal rights of a party. A presumption against independent state grounds would have the Court expounding their understanding of Constitutional law to the legal community instead of primarily sitting to resolve disputes.
1. McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819); pg. 67, briefed 9/10/95
2. Facts: In 1816, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States, which became active in Maryland. In 1818, the Maryland legislature passed an Act to tax any bank not chartered by the Legislature of Maryland, thus taxing the U.S. Bank. The law provided for private remedies against the bank operators, of which, one was McCulloch.
3. Procedural Posture: The trial court entered judgment on the basis of an agreed statement of facts (that the U.S. Bank was not chartered by the Maryland legislature), and the Maryland Court of Appeal affirmed. An appeal was taken by writ of error to the Supreme Court.
4. Issue: 1) Whether Congress has the power to incorporate a bank; and 2) Whether the state of Maryland may, without violating the constitution, tax the U.S. Bank.
5. Holding: 1) Yes. 2) No.
6. ¸ Argument: Although Congress does not have the enumerated power to incorporate a bank, such power is implied by the Ònecessary and properÓ language of Article I Section 8.
7. Æ Argument: Congress not only does not have the enumerated power to incorporate a bank, but furthermore only has the powers that the states, as independent sovereigns, give to it. This is evidenced by the Ònecessary and properÓ language which should be construed to be a limit on Congressional power, implying only strict necessity.
8. Majority Reasoning: Marshall first noted that the Congressional power established by the Constitution originates from the people, not the states. Article II should be read in light of the previous Articles of Confederation, which were unworkable because of their strict limitations on express Congressional power. The Constitution, by nature, must be general in order to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. Thus, there must be some implied powers to allow Congress to exercise the broad range of express powers given as means to ends. The language Ònecessary and properÓ should be construed to mean Òconvenient, or useful, or essentialÓ not as things that are absolutely necessary, otherwise the word ÒproperÓ would be superfluous, and there would be no need to include the word ÒabsolutelyÓ in the enumeration of powers to the states. The Ònecessary and properÓ language is included among the power of Congress, not the limitations, and so should be read as enlarging the scope of Congress' powers. All means which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the exercise of enumerated powers are constitutional, not just those that are strictly necessary. As to whether Maryland could tax the federal bank, the power to tax something is the power to destroy it. Since the states are necessarily inferior to the federal government, the states do not have the power to ÒdestroyÓ (by taxing) the federal government. The people did not design to make their federal government dependent on the states.
1. Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824); pg. 94, briefed 9/10/95
2. Facts: Gibbons was a former partner turned competitor of Ogden. Ogden had a monopoly to operate steamboats on the New York Harbor from New York City to New Jersey, and Gibbons was competing with him. Ogdens' monopoly was granted by the New York state legislature. Gibbon's ferries were licensed as Òvessels to be employed in the coasting tradeÓ under a federal law of 1793.
3. Procedural Posture: The trial court granted an injunction against Gibbons to stop operating his ferry. Gibbons brought an appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the statute granting a monopoly to Ogden was unconstitutional as being repugnant to the commerce power granted to Congress.
4. Issue: Whether Congress has the power to regulate the navigation of steamboats on the New York harbor between New York and New Jersey, to the exclusion of the state of New York.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. ¸ Argument: The New York law is unconstitutional because it usurps Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, which includes navigation.
7. Æ Argument: Congress does not have the power to regulate non-commerce events such as Ònavigation.Ó Also, Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce that occurs internal to a state, only that that occurs between two states.
8. Majority Reasoning: Marshall stated that the common understanding of the word ÒcommerceÓ necessarily included Ònavigation.Ó Thus, Congress has the right to regulate navigation as if it were expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Congress has the power to regulate commerce Òamong the several states.Ó ÒAmongÓ means intermingled with, not just between. Thus, the commerce power extends internal to the states because commerce transactions, which can affect the states generally, can originate and terminate within the state border boundaries. Although it does not extend to transactions which are completely internal to a state, the commerce power would be useless if it could not extend beyond the state boundaries because that is where the transactions occur. Lastly, the commerce power is limited only by the constitution. The Congress has the full and exclusive power to make rules by which interstate commerce is to be governed. This power is centralized in one body, but it can act wherever needed in the states.
1. United States v. E.C. Knight & Co., (1895); pg. 100, briefed 9/10/95
2. Facts: Knight acquired the stock of several other sugar manufacturing companies, to control about 98% of the nation's sugar refining capacity.
3. Procedural Posture: The government brought a civil action under the Sherman Act, which provided for penalties for Òrestraint of trade or commerce among the several states,Ó to set aside the acquisition. The lower court dismissed the action, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court.
4. Issue: Whether Congress had the power, under the commerce clause, to regulate the monopolization of the means of manufacturing a good.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: A monopoly of manufacture restrains the free trade or commerce among the states, and thus is contrary to the Sherman Act. Congress has the power to regulate the monopolization of manufacture because it restrains free trade among the states.
7. Æ Argument: A monopolization of manufacture is not possible. Even if it were, such power to control it would necessarily extend to all use of raw materials, and thus is beyond what the Sherman Act contemplates.
8. Majority Reasoning: If monopolization of manufacture could exist, it could only have an indirect effect on interstate commerce. There is a difference between ÒmanufactureÓ and ÒcommerceÓ, namely that commerce succeeds manufacture. Thus, controlling manufacture only indirectly controls commerce. Congress does not have the power to control manufacture because that would be too intrusive a power, necessarily applying to all production of raw materials that could be manufactured into a higher product and then subject to commercial interstate transactions. Allowing the power to be construed this broadly would leave no powers for the states to exercise pursuant to the tenth amendment. All local commerce would then be subject to federal control. Thus, the distinction must be made between activities that have a ÒdirectÓ affect on commerce, which Congress can control, and those which have merely and ÒindirectÓ or incidental affect on commerce, which the states are left to control.
1. Houston E. & W. Texas Ry. Co. v. United States (The Shreveport Rate Case), (1914); pg. 103, briefed 9/10/95
2. Facts: The railroad had rail lines both within Texas, and between Texas and Louisiana. As an incentive to promote Texas suppliers to sell to Texas manufacturers, the railroad maintained lower rates for traffic within the state of Texas, while charging disproportionately high rates for traffic to Louisiana.
3. Procedural Posture: The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) set rates for the transportation of goods from Texas to Louisiana, and ordered the railroad to end its discriminatory practice of maintaining lower rates for traffic within the state. The railroad challenged that order, appealing to the Supreme Court.
4. Issue: Whether Congress, through the ICC, has the power to set the intra-state railroad cargo rates of a carrier that has both intra-state and inter-state lines, if such intra-state rates represent an unjust discrimination against inter-state commerce.
5. Holding: Yes. ÒWhenever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related that the government of one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the State, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority.Ó
6. ¸ Argument: Congress has not power to regulate the intra-state rates.
7. Æ Argument: Congress has the power to regulate intra-state rates if they affect interstate commerce.
8. Majority Reasoning: Congressional authority extends to interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce. This necessarily includes the right to control all of their operations that have a Òclose and substantialÓ affect on interstate commerce. The fact that the carrier has intra-state business as well does not diminish Congress' power to regulate the interstate portion by preventing injury to it. Otherwise, the commerce power would have no bite among carriers with both lines. Furthermore, Congress had the power to affect the intrastate lines in other areas, such as safety because it also had an interstate commerce component. Thus, Congress has the power to foster and protect interstate commerce, and to take all measures necessary and appropriate to that end, although intrastate transactions may be thereby controlled.
9. Notes: The Òcurrent of commerceÓ notion has also been invoked as a practical consideration to allow Congress to regulate portions of interstate commerce that appear to be solely intrastate. In Stafford v. Wallace, the Supreme Court held that individual purchases by middlemen of meat destined for the cities was a part of the Òcurrent of commerce.Ó The purchase by the middlemen was local to the state that they were in, but they were simply a part of a greater flow of meat from the West to the East. The many transactions, viewed as a whole, represented interstate commerce on a major scale. If the middlemen were unregulated, their actions could become an obstacle to free trade.
1. Wickard v. Filburn, (1942); pg. 128, briefed 9/10/95
2. Facts: Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat both for sale and for his own use. Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Filburn was fined for producing too much wheat for his own consumption.
3. Procedural Posture: Filburn sought enjoinder of the fine, and sued the Secretary of Agriculture, Wickard. The lower court granted the injunction on other grounds, and Wickard appealed.
4. Issue: Whether Congress has the power to regulate the production of wheat for consumption by the farmer, apart from the sale of such wheat commercially.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. ¸ Argument: The Congress does not have the power under the commerce clause to regulate the production and consumption of wheat because these activities are local in character and, at most, have an indirect effect on interstate commerce.
7. Æ Argument: The statute does not regulate production or consumption of wheat, but only marketing; and even if it goes beyond marketing, it is Ònecessary and properÓ in this case.
8. Majority Reasoning: The court discarded the Òdirect-indirectÓ approach of Gibbons v. Ogden for a more encompassing approach. Whether an activity had a local is only one of the facts upon which a decision should be based. The test should be based on whether the activity has a Òsubstantial economic effectÓ on interstate commerce. The consumption of homegrown wheat causes extreme volatility in the national market because it is so variable. Although the effect of one farmer may trivial, he is part of a nationwide market, where the overall effect is not trivial. Since this activity has a substantial economic effect on the interstate wheat market, Congress has the power to regulate it.
1. United States v. Darby, (1941); pg. 131, briefed 9/10/95
2. Facts: Darby was a Georgia lumber manufacturer who hired labor at less than the minimum wage prescribed in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. He was indicted on violating this Act, which sought to regulate the hours and wages of employees by prohibiting the sale of the product in interstate commerce.
3. Procedural Posture: Darby challenged the indictment, and the lower District Court quashed it, holding that it was unconstitutional because it sought to regulate ÒlocalÓ manufacturing activities.
4. Issue: Whether Congress has the power to prohibit shipments of product that are manufactured by employees who are paid less than a prescribed minimum wage and required to work more than a prescribed maximum number of hours.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. ¸ Argument: The Congress only has the power to regulate prohibit the shipment of products which are ÒbadÓ in themselves, such as toxic or stolen articles. This prohibition is motivated by the regulation of local wages, the control of which has been reserved to the states as police power, and so is trampling on the states' rights.
7. Æ Argument: In its power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress has the implied power to exclude from commerce any articles which it perceives to be injurious to the public health and welfare.
8. Majority Reasoning: The fact that the state has not regulated this type of activity does not preclude the federal government from doing so; its powers are not limited by the inaction of the state. The motive and purpose behind a regulation are legislative concerns, and as long as the power is not exercised beyond the contemplation of the constitution, Congress is free to use the commerce power to implement public policy. Hammer v. Dagenhart, which limited Congress' power to regulate only those objects which were themselves harmful, is overruled. The test for whether Congress can regulate an activity under the commerce power is whether the activity has a Òsubstantial effect on the commerce or the exercise of the Congressional power over it.Ó Congress may choose the means necessary to achieve this end, even if it necessarily involves the control of intrastate actions.
1. Perez v. United States, (1971); pg. 137, briefed 9/13/95
2. Facts: Perez was a loan shark. He was convicted under Title II of the Consumer Credit Protection Act which was a federal law prohibiting extortionate loan activities. The Act was passed by Congress pursuant to findings that 1) organized crime is interstate in nature, and 2) a substantial part of the income for organized crime is generated by extortionate loan activities, thus, loan sharking is an instrumentality of interstate commerce, even where individual transactions are purely intrastate in nature.
3. Procedural Posture: Perez challenged his conviction on the grounds that the Act was unconstitutional as being an impermissible exercise of the commerce power by Congress.
4. Issue: Whether Title II of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as construed and applied to Perez, is a permissible exercise by Congress of its powers under the Commerce Clause.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. ¸ Argument: The Act is unconstitutional because it exceeds the limits of the commerce power contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. It infringes on the States' police power of their own intrastate crime activities. Loan sharking is a local activity, not an interstate activity.
7. Æ Argument: Since loan sharking is a substantial revenue generator for organized crime, and organized crime is a nationwide problem that uses interstate commerce as a conduit to conduct illegal transactions, loan sharking affects interstate commerce and is thus able to be regulated by Congress. The States are not able to deal with this problem individually, the federal government needs to provide tools to deal with the problem on a nation-wide level.
8. Majority Reasoning: The majority accepted Congress' findings on the relationship between loan sharking and organized crime, and the effect of organized crime on interstate commerce. They stated that the commerce clause reaches protection of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, which included the policing of organized crime. Citing to Darby, the court reasoned that it was permissible for Congress to regulate a class of activities without proof that the particular intrastate activity that was thereby controlled had an effect on commerce. It was proper to consider the Òtotal incidenceÓ that the class of activities had on commerce, rather than to try to carve out exceptions for individual occurrences of the activity that were not proven to be directly related to commerce. Even if individual transactions of loan sharking were completely local in nature, as a whole, they comprised a threat to interstate commerce because of their relation to the interstate activities of organized crime.
9. Dissent Reasoning: Conviction for loan sharking under the federal law should require proof that the individual was actually involved in interstate activities. Otherwise, a purely local problem would be regulated by the federal government, contrary to the States' police power. Loan sharking is only a national problem in the sense that all crime is a national problem. There is no distinguishing factor about loan-sharking that lends itself to being a threat to interstate commerce per se.
1. United States v. Five Gambling Devices, (1953); pg. 140, briefed 9/13/95
2. Facts: This case involved three companion proceedings arising from a statute that prohibited the shipment of gambling machines in interstate commerce. The statute required the registration and reporting of all gambling machines sold, by all manufacturers and dealers in gambling devices, not just those that had some nexus to interstate commerce.
3. Procedural Posture: The lower courts found the statutory interpretation unconstitutional.
4. Issue: Whether the statute requiring the registration of all gambling devices by all manufacturers and dealers was a permissible exercise of the commerce power when it was interpreted to apply to purely intrastate transactions.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: The statute should be applied according to its literal terms without any showing that any individual activity be shown to have an actual effect on interstate commerce. To have an effective regulation of those gambling machine related activities that do have a relationship to interstate commerce, it is necessary to require reporting of all intrastate transactions.
7. Æ Argument: The statute is unconstitutional because it regulates purely intrastate transactions that can not be shown to have any nexus to interstate commerce.
8. Majority Reasoning: No precedent of the Court has upheld the power of Congress to enact legislation which penalizes failure to report information concerning acts that have not been shown to be related to interstate commerce. Although the Darby ÒbootstrapÓ theory, which allows a class of activities to be regulated even though it is over-inclusive, is applicable under its own facts, the present case is distinguishable on its facts. However, the traditional limitations of the federal system do not go against the lower courts findings. There is no unmistakable intent of Congress to apply the act to the police powers normally reserved for the states.
1. United States v. Bass, (1971); pg. 142, briefed 9/13/95
2. Facts: A man was convicted of possession of a firearm in violation of a provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which applied to any felon Òwho receives, possesses, or transports in interstate commerce or affecting commerce, any firearm.Ó
3. Procedural Posture: There had been no showing that the defendant's firearms were commerce-related, but the lower court convicted anyway.
4. Issue: Whether the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 applied to merely the possession or receiving of firearms without a nexus to interstate commerce demonstrated.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: The commerce limitations in the law applied only to ÒtransportsÓ and that possession and receipt were punishable without a showing that there was a nexus with commerce.
7. Æ Argument: The interpretation by the government is unconstitutional because it reaches into purely intrastate activities which have no relations to interstate commerce.
8. Majority Reasoning: Since the statute was criminal in nature, such a broad reading as the government asserted would be too intrusive to the police powers of the states. In the absence of clear direction of Congressional intent to do so, the court would not construe the statute so broadly as to not require a showing of nexus with commerce.
9. Notes: In Scarborough v. United States, the government came prepared to show that the firearm in question had once moved in interstate commerce, but did not provide a strong link that the person convicted was involved in any way in interstate commerce or got the firearms after his felony conviction. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court found that the showing was Òsufficient to satisfy the statutorily required nexus between the possession of the firearms by a convicted felon and commerce.Ó
1. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, (1964); pg. 151, briefed 9/17/95
2. Facts: The hotel had 216 rooms and was located within ready access to two interstate highways. It advertised in national media, and was a center for conventions of out of state guests. The hotel refused to rent rooms to African Americans.
3. Procedural Posture: The hotel brought a declaratory judgment action attacking the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race in places of Òpublic accommodation,Ó and which grounded its authority primarily in the commerce power. The District Court upheld the Act, and the Hotel appealed.
4. Issue: Whether application of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to a motel which serves interstate customers is within the constitutional power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.
5. Holding: Yes. ÒThe determinative test of the exercise of power by the Congress under the Commerce Clause is simply whether the activity sought to be regulated is `commerce which concerns more States than one' and has a real and substantial relation to the national interest.Ó
6. ¸ Argument: Congress did not have the power to legislate against moral wrongs under the guise of the Commerce Power. Even if they did, the operation of a motel is purely local in character, and thus does not affect interstate commerce.
7. Æ Argument: Discrimination by hotels has a significant effect on interstate commerce by deterring African Americans to travel.
8. Majority Reasoning: There is ample evidence in the Congressional record that discrimination by places of public accommodation impair African-Americans' ability to travel, thus affecting interstate commerce. Thus, the Act passed the test of Òcommerce which concerns more States than one,Ó and discrimination had a substantial relation to the national interest. The court then listed several examples of factual scenarios where the Congress had legitimately exercised the commerce power to police activities which were both immoral and had an adverse affect on interstate commerce. ÒThat Congress was legislating against moral wrongs...rendered its enactments no less valid.Ó Furthermore, Òif it is interstate commerce that feels the pinch, it does not matter how local the operation that applies the squeeze.Ó Thus, the commerce power encompasses the regulation of local activities that have an affect on interstate commerce.
1. Katzenbach v. McClung, (1964); pg. 153, briefed 9/17/95
2. Facts: Ollie's BBQ was a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham that seated 220 customers and was located on a state highway near an interstate highway. The restaurant received about $70,000 of food, mostly meat, in interstate commerce annually. However, it refused to serve African Americans inside its dining facility. They could only order take-out.
3. Procedural Posture: The restaurant brought this action [a sister action to Heart of Atlanta] to challenge the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act as it related to restaurants. The District Court found that the Act provided no basis for relating the operations of a local restaurant to interstate commerce, and thus issued an injunction restraining the Act from being enforced against the restaurant, concluding that it would lose substantial business.
4. Issue: Whether such part of Title II of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in restaurants which serve interstate travelers or which serve food a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce is constitutional.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. ¸ Argument: There is no basis for believing that racial discrimination in local restaurants has any affect on interstate commerce. Congress has merely created a conclusive presumption that it does, without making formal findings in the record that support such an assertion. The government should be required to show the connection to interstate commerce on a case-by-case basis. The volume of food served at Ollie's BBQ prohibits such a finding.
7. Æ Argument: Racial discrimination in restaurants has an affect on interstate commerce because it deters African Americans from traveling, thus reducing business overall.
8. Majority Reasoning: Although there were no formal findings made by Congress, the testimony contained ample evidence to support a finding that racial discrimination in restaurants had an adverse affect on interstate commerce. For instance, by deterring travel by African Americans, the whole business climate suffers for lack of customers. Also, discrimination puts an artificial restriction on the free flow of goods. The wide unrest over the discrimination has a depressant effect on local businesses making new investment and expansion unfavorable in such a depressed business climate. Following Wickard, local activities can be said to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce when viewed in Òaggregation.Ó Racial discrimination is not merely a local problem. As an ÒaggregationÓ it is a nationwide problem. Thus, it exercises a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. The lack of formal findings to that effect were not fatal to the Act because there existed enough evidence to conclude that Congress had a rational basis for Òfinding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce.Ó The Court needed to do no further examination to second-guess Congress' judgment in the light of such evidence.
9. Concurrence Reasoning: Douglas was reluctant to base his opinion entirely on the Commerce Clause because he felt that the human rights issue at stake was more consequential than the commerce clause could justify. Thus, he would also support the reasoning under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment because it seemed a much more appropriate grounds for anti-discrimination protection.
10. Notes: Five years later in Daniel v. Paul, Justice Black was the sole dissenter against application of Title II of the Civil Rights Act to the Lake Nixon Club in Arkansas. The club had a snack bar that refused to serve African Americans, and a substantial portion of the food served at the snack bar had traveled in interstate commerce. However, Black felt that the Act would be justifiable if based on the Fourteenth Amendment, but he did not feel that there was an adequate relationship between this snack bar and interstate commerce. He was afraid that this finding would stretch the commerce power to regulate any Òremote country place of recreation in every nook and cranny of every precinct and countyÓ everywhere.
1. Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., (1985); pg. 160, briefed 9/17/95
2. Facts: Garcia was a bus driver who worked overtime hours. Under the FLSA, the Æ, SAMTA, was required to pay a certain wage and comply with certain overtime standards. However, four months after the Supreme Court's ruling in National League of Cities, that the FLSA did not apply to state government agencies Òin areas of traditional government functions,Ó SAMTA notified its employees that the decision relieved it of its overtime obligations under the FLSA because a municipal public mass-transit system was traditionally a local government function, and therefore immune from FLSA.
3. Procedural Posture: Garcia sued for his overtime pay under the FLSA. The District Court found that a municipal operation of a mass transit system was a traditional government function, and thus under National League of Cities, is exempt from the FLSA wage and overtime obligations.
4. Issue: Whether Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate activities and functions that are ÒtraditionallyÓ an ÒintegralÓ part of state government operations.
5. Holding: Yes. The fundamental limitation that the constitutional scheme imposes on Congress' power under the commerce clause to protect Òstates as statesÓ from intrusion by federal regulation is a procedural one to be found in the political process - states' and citizens' participation in federal governmental action.
6. Majority Reasoning: The test of National League of Cities [also the third prong of the test in Hodel], that Congress may not interfere with ÒtraditionalÓ state government functions, is unworkable. There is no meaningful way to determine what is a ÒtraditionalÓ or ÒintegralÓ part of a state government's function, and what is not. Such an approach has led to artificial results since its enactment. History is not a viable grounds for a determination because this prevents meaningful change when necessary, as well as being fairly arbitrary. Furthermore, it requires the unelected judiciary to review legislative decisions based on which policies it likes and dislikes. [This argument goes contrary to Marbury.] If Congress has a particular power, it does not matter whether it interferes with the laws of the states. To find limits on the commerce power, the constitution itself must be examined. Since there are no express limits, the constitution suggests that the structure of the federal government itself is the process by which it is regulated; i.e. by state representatives to the federal government. The states' interests are best protected by their own representation in the federal government. Since the FLSA is a lesser burden on the states than many other Acts, it is evidence of the political pressures on the federal government to protect states' rights. Thus, National League of Cities is overruled.
7. Dissent Reasoning: [Powell] reasoned that the majority rendered the 10th amendment [reservation of power to the states] meaningless. The Òbalancing testÓ of National League of Cities was best designed to protect the states while allowing the Congress proper power. The majority also failed to explain how the states' role in the electoral process protects them in their capacity as states themselves. The fact that Congress does not generally exceed its constitutional limits to reach state activities does not make judicial review any less necessary on those occasions that it does. The States' rights are a matter of congressional law, not legislative grace. Congress has passed increasingly more legislation of this type, while at the same time losing ground with its local constituents. This poses a danger for future stability of the federal government because it undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. Furthermore, it is clerks and aids who normally draft legislation, not the Senators themselves. Thus, the drafters are even one more step removed from the constituents who best know how to govern their local agencies. Since the FLSA is so economically intrusive, it clearly violates the ÒbalanceÓ established by National League of Cities.
8. Dissent Reasoning:[O'Connor] felt that the majority had backed down from the fight for states' rights just when the states needed help from the Supreme Court. There is now a risk that Congress will gradually erase the diffusion of power between state and nation on which the Framers relied. Such a fear is not unwarranted given the amount of similar legislative activity in the last 30 years. The proper test should be weighing the states' rights as a Òrelevant considerationÓ in determining the constitutionality of uses of the commerce power.
1. United States v. Lopez, (1995); pg. 9 Supp., briefed 9/17/95
2. Facts: Lopez was a high school senior in San Antonio who was caught with a .38 caliber handgun and five bullets on school grounds.
3. Procedural Posture: Lopez was charged with violation of ¤ 922(q) of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal offense Òfor any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a...school zone.Ó The District Court convicted him on a bench trial and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal for the 5th district reversed the conviction on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional as being beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over local public schools, and the Supreme Court granted cert.
4. Issue: Whether ¤ 922(q) of the Gun-Free School Zones Act is unconstitutional as being beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over local public schools.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. ¸ Argument: ¤ 922(q) is valid because possession of a firearm in a school zone Òsubstantially affectsÓ [see Shreveport] interstate commerce because it results in violent crime which affects the economy in two ways: first, it results in increased costs to the taxpayers, second, it deters people from traveling to areas that are perceived to be unsafe. Also, the presence of guns in school is a substantial threat to the learning environment, which results in a less educated population, and therefore a less productive economy.
7. Æ Argument: The Gun-Free School Zones Act is unconstitutional as being beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over local public schools.
8. Majority Reasoning: ¤ 922(q) is a criminal statute that has no observable relationship to ÒcommerceÓ or any sort of economic enterprise, regardless of how broadly those terms are defined. Deterring the presence of guns on school grounds is not part of a larger regulatory scheme to control commerce that would otherwise be undermined if not viewed in the Òaggregate.Ó Furthermore, it contains no test by which the firearm in question could be rationally linked to interstate commerce. Although the lack of formal Congressional findings to this extent are not fatal, their absence fails to save the statute from the otherwise plain observation that it is not commerce-related. To accept the government's position that it guns at schools do have a substantial effect on commerce because they adversely affect the economy would be to give virtually unlimited power to Congress to regulate any activity that has a social cost. Additionally, such a position would allow Congress to provide federally mandated school curriculums, and regulate each and every aspect of local schools. This is too broad a reading of the commerce power.
9. Concurrence Reasoning: [Kennedy, O'Connor] Such a broad reading of the commerce power would violate the theory of federalism in which the states perform their role as laboratories for the experimentation with various means of local regulation.
10. Concurrence Reasoning: [Thomas] In future cases, the Court should take the opportunity to fashion jurisprudence that more accurately reflects the intent of the Framers with respect to the commerce power. The Òsubstantial effectÓ test is far too broad in light of the historical evidence of the Framers' intent.
11. Dissent Reasoning: [Souter] The Court was wrong to second-guess the rational basis for Congress' enactment of this Act based on the commerce clause. As a matter of judicial restraint, the Court should defer judgment to the legislature when it appears that there is a rational basis for the Act.
12. Dissent Reasoning: [Breyer] The economic reality is that the quality of education has a Òsubstantial effectÓ on interstate commerce because it affects the individual citizen's ability to compete in the global marketplace.
1. Gregory v. Ashcroft, (1991); pg. 40 Supp., briefed 9/17/95
2. Facts: Missouri has a state constitutional provision that provides for the mandatory requirement of judges when they reach age 70. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits an employer from discharging an individual over the age of 40 for reasons of age. However, the Act expressly excludes from the definition of ÒemployeeÓ any Òperson elected to public officeÓ or any Òappointee on the policymaking level.Ó Judges in Missouri are first appointed by the Governor and then re-elected.
3. Procedural Posture: Unknown.
4. Issue: Whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act may be applied to the mandatory retirement of Missouri judges.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: Missouri argued that the judges fell into the exception of the Act as being either elected or policymaking persons, and therefore exempt.
7. Majority Reasoning: Because of the delicate balance of federal vs. state power, and especially in light of the serious intrusion it would be into state power if the federal government were able to regulate the ages of their public officials, O'Connor held that Congress would be taken to have encroached on state power in this context only if there was a Òplain statementÓ to that effect. This was necessary to preserve the Framer's Òdual sovereigntyÓ notion of the power of the states being commensurate with the power of the federal government. Especially since the Court, in Garcia, had left protection of states' rights primarily to the political process of elections, we must be absolutely certain that Congress intended such an exercise so that the Commerce Power is kept in check. Since the ADEA's exclusion of most public officials is ambiguous, the Court would not interpret Congressional intent as being plain enough to effect such a broad exercise of power.
8. Concurrence Reasoning: The majority's Òplain statementÓ rule is ÒunwiseÓ, ÒinfeasibleÓ, and Òunnecessary to the proper resolution of this case.Ó It deviates from the standard set forth in Garcia, and there is no reason to think that the rationale of Garcia would be inapplicable here. However, there is no reason to consider this question, because as a matter of simple statutory construction, Missouri judges are exempted as ÒelectedÓ or ÒpolicymakingÓ officials.
1. New York v. United States, (1992); pg. 43 Supp., briefed 9/24/95
2. Facts: In 1985, Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which was intended to solve a national problem of the disposal of low-level radioactive waste by providing a procedure for states to either group together into regional compacts, each dumping their waste into a single site in one of the compact states, or find their own waste disposal area. The Act had three provisions: 1) monetary incentives which allowed site states to charge increasingly higher surcharges to non-pact states for disposal of their waste, part of which surcharges would be refunded to the states by the Secretary of Energy if they complied with a timeline for finding their own disposal sites, 2) access incentives which allowed site states to deny access to non-pact states after a few years, and 3) a Òtake-titleÓ provision which required the delinquent states to take possession and title of the radioactive waste and assume liability for it if they remained delinquent to the end. New York decided to dispose of its own waste, and did not join a regional pact. However, the state had problems locating the site within its borders because the local citizens did not want it.
3. Procedural Posture: The state of New York brought this action to seek a declaratory judgment that the Act was inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment and the Guarantee Clause of Article IV.
4. Issue: Whether Congress may direct or otherwise compel a State to regulate a particular private field in a particular way.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: The 10th amendment forbids Congress from directly regulating the states to compel them to carry out federal regulation in this private field. Although they unquestionably have the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the generators of the waste, they do not have the power to compel the states to directly regulate the waste generators in a particular manner. The Act Òcommandeers the legislative processes of the states.Ó Furthermore, the second part of the act which provides for monetary incentives is beyond Congress' spending power. Lastly, the Act violates the Guarantee Clause because it attempts to undermine the states' own republican form of government.
7. Æ Argument: The Constitution's prohibition of convressional directives to state governments can be overcome where the federal interest is sufficiently important to justify state submission. Also, the Constitution does, in some circumstances, permit federal directives to state governments. Lastly, the Constitution envisions a role for Congress as an arbiter of state disputes.
8. Majority Reasoning: The Tenth Amendment is a truism that simply directs the court to examine what are the internal limitations to the powers granted to Congress in Article I. So the court must examine the Commerce Power, the Spending Power, and the Supremacy Clause. The basic premise is that under Hodel, Congress may not simply ÒcommandeerÓ the state governmental processes. Nothing in the Constitution implies that Congress has the ability to require states to govern by federal coercion. This premise is supported by looking at the Framer's intent when they chose the structure that the Congress would exercise its power directly over individuals rather than over states as intermediaries. Although Congress can motivate or encourage states to regulate in a certain way by making federal assistance conditional or by giving them the choice between doing it themselves or having the federal government do it for them by preemption, it can not directly compel. This enables state governments to be directly responsive and accountable to the local electorate. Where the federal government compels regulation, the state officials take the brunt, while the federal officials remain insulated, thus reducing accountability in the political process. Construing the Act in a light most favorable to the United States, the Òtake titleÓ provision is still clearly beyond Congress' power because Congress neither has the power to force states to take title to the waste (thereby subsidizing the generators) nor does it have the power to compel regulation. That there is a very strong federal interest in controlling waste does not allow Congress to go beyond the Constitution. Even if New York state itself agreed to the bargain, the state is powerless to waive the Constitutional limits on Congressional power because the Constitution is for the protection of individuals. The other parts of the Act are Constitutional because neither monetary incentives nor access denials can reasonably be said to deny a State a republican form of government.
9. Concurrence/Dissent Reasoning: [White] reasoned that the majority had taken the Act out of its historical context and its contractual setting. The states, including New York, got together to reach their own agreement on how the radioactive waste crisis should be handled. They did not seek federal pre-emption, but rather federal sanction of their pact under Article I, Section 10 which states that Òno state shall, without the consent of Congress,...enter into any agreement or Compact with another State.Ó Thus New York should be estopped from asserting the unconstitutionality of a bargain that it had derived substantial benefit from.
1. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture, (1922_; pg. 177, briefed 9/24/95
2. Facts: After the Court held that regulation of child labor was unconstitutional if its basis was the Commerce Power (Hammer v. Dagenhart), Congress passed the Child Labor Tax Law of 1919 which imposed a federal excise tax of 10% of the annual net profits of any employer who exceeded the age or working hours limitations provided. It was almost identical to the Act declared unconstitutional in Hammer, but it rested on the taxing power instead.
3. Procedural Posture: Drexel brought this action for refund in the District Court after paying $6,000 under the tax, and won. The IRS appealed.
4. Issue: Whether Congress may impose a tax on industries as a means of regulating child labor, under the pretext of the taxing power.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: The Act is a regulation of the employment of child labor internal to the states, which is an exclusively state function under the 10th amendment.
7. Æ Argument: The Act is a mere excise tax levied by the Congress under its broad power of taxation under the Constitution. The court has already gone so far un upholding taxing statutes that it is bound by precedent to uphold this one as well.
8. Majority Reasoning: The Act, on its face, appears to be a penalty enacted under the pretext of a tax. It provides a heavy burden for departure from a detailed and specific course of conduct. It is imposed without regard to the severity or proportion of the violation of the child labor provisions. It also requires a mens rea in that the violator knowingly depart from the standards. Thus, it clearly looks like a penalty. To allow it merely because it has the magic word ÒtaxÓ would be to break down all constitutional limitations on Congress' power to interfere with state activities, because then any subject of federal concern could be regulated by the taxing power. Even though some taxes have an incidental penalty-like action, this one is primarily a penalty. This case is the same as Hammer. Also, the previous authority relied upon by the government is distinguishable because it involved taxes that were not enacted under a pretext.
1. United States v. Kahriger, (1953); pg. 181, briefed 9/24/95
2. Facts: The Revenue Act of 1951 contained a 10% occupational tax on persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers (professional interstate gamblers). It also required these persons to keep a list of the names, and addresses of all employees for public inspection at any time by any state county or municipal agency. In the discussions in the Congressional record, there was evidence that one of the primary purposes was to tax these professional gamblers out of existence.
3. Procedural Posture: The lower court found this provision beyond the taxing power of the Congress.
4. Issue: Whether Congress has the power, under the taxing power, to enact a tax on a particular profession if the tax also has a regulatory effect which appears to infringe on the states' police power under the 10th amendment.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. ¸ Argument: The legislative history indicating a congressional motive to suppress wagering indicates that this is a tax passed under a pretext of revenue generation and thus is not a proper exercise of the taxing power. The sole purpose of the law is to penalize gamblers. The revenue generation pretext is evidenced by the small amount of revenue actually generated. Furthermore, a the law requires the gamblers to record and present upon demand the names and addresses of their employees, which is clearly an attempt to regulate this occupation.
7. Majority Reasoning: A federal excise tax is not invalid merely because it discourages or deters the activities taxed. Nor is it invalid because the revenue generated is negligible. If a tax produces revenue, and unless there are penalty provisions extraneous to any tax need, the courts are without authority to limit the exercise of the taxing power. This tax is not a penalty, therefore it is valid. The registration requirement simply aids in the collection of the tax.
1. United States v. Butler, (1936); pg. 186, briefed, 9/24/95
2. Facts: Butler was a processor of cotton. In 1933, the Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act as one of the New Deal measures intended to raise agricultural prices by limiting farm production. In return for limiting their production, the government would give the farmers a subsidy that was raised by taxing the processing stage of the agriculture.
3. Procedural Posture: Butler attacked the tax on the grounds that it was an integral part of an unconstitutional program to control agricultural production.
4. Issue: Whether the Act was a valid exercise of the power to spend for the general welfare.
5. Holding: No.
6. Æ Argument: Congress has the right to tax and spend to Òprovide for the general welfare.Ó This phrase should be liberally construed to cover anything conducive to the national welfare. The decision as to what is conducive to the national welfare is the function of Congress alone, unreviewable by the courts, and this Act was for the Ògeneral welfare.Ó Furthermore, it is not coercive, because it provides for voluntary compliance through payment of benefits.
7. Majority Reasoning: Looking to the framer's intent, the Court accepted Hamilton's view that Congress has a substantive power to tax and to spend, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. However, the Court did not reach the determination of whether the Act was for the general welfare, because it invades the rights reserved to the states. The attempt by congress to regulate the production of agriculture is unconstitutional, thus any laws passed as a means to this unconstitutional end are enacted under a pretext. The taxing power can not be used to interfere with the states' rights, so the spending power should not either. The Act is coercive, because it does not provide the farmers with a practical choice, since their non-compliance would result in their financial ruin. Furthermore, the power of Congress to contract with individuals is limited by whether its federal power reaches the subject matter of the contract. In this case, the federal power does not reach so far.
8. Dissent: The court should only be concerned with the power to enact statutes, not their wisdom. The court here may be overstepping its bounds by trying to pass judgment on the policy of the law, not its consitutionality. The coercion argument is unconvincing because Congress must be able to have the power to condition funding on proper use of the funding, otherwise, its broad powers would be defeated.
2. Facts: Title IX of the Social Security Act imposed a payroll tax on employers, but granted a credit of up to 90% of the tax for contributions to a state unemployment fund if such fund was certified by the federal government as meeting the requirements of the Act. One of the provisions of the Act required the states to immediately pay over the funds to the federal government who would hold them in trust.
3. Procedural Posture: Steward sought a refund of the taxes they had paid under this Act.
4. Issue: Whether Congress has the power to encourage the states to accept federally approved unemployment programs by providing tax credits to employers in that state if the programs are adopted.
5. Holding: yes.
6. ¸ Argument: The aim of the law is to conscript the state legilatures by the use of economic pressure. Thus, it is unconstitutional as infringing upon the soveriegnty of the states.
7. Æ Argument: The statute was designed to enable the states to cooperate with the federal government in the solving of a national problem. It does not coerce state governments because it is optional.
8. Majority Reasoning: Cardozo explained that the unemployment problem was nationwide and was not relieved by the action (or inaction) of the states. Thus, the action of the federal government was clearly for the general welfare. Congress was capable of determining what was in the best interest of the national welfare in this case. There was not coercion, but merely motivation or temptation. To argue that coercion was the same as economic motivation would be to Òplunge the law into endless diffifultiesÓ because the distinction between what was coercion and what was not would be impossible. Congress has the power to tax and to condition the tax on the compliance of the states, as long as the subject matter of the tax is related to the scope of national policy and power. The Child Labor Law case is distinguishable because in that case, the pretext was clearly visible. In this case, the tax credit would be lawful on its own. It is not crippled by the fact that it is tied to conditional performance by the states.
1. Woods v. Miller Co., (1948); pg. 302, briefed 10/1/95
2. Facts: The Housing and Rent Act of 1947 was passed under the authority of the war power to regulate the rents of houses in post-WWII America. As the soldiers came back from the war, they were met with a housing shortage due to the reduction in residential construction. The reduction was caused by allocation of building materials to military projects.
3. Procedural Posture: The District Court held that the authority of Congress to regulate rents by virtue of the war power ended with the President's New-Year's Eve 1946 proclamation of peace. Also, Congress did not state that they were acting under the war power when they passed the Housing and Rent Act. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
4. Issue: Whether the Housing and Rent Act is a constitutional exercise of the war power by Congress.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. Majority Reasoning: [Douglas] Citing to both Hamilton and Ruppert, the court stated that the war power includes the power Òto remedy the evils which have arisen from its rise and progressÓ and continues for the duration of that emergency. It does not end with the cessation of hostilities. The Presidential proclamation recognized that the state of war still existed, and the war effort was what contributed most heavily to the present housing shortage. Thus, Congress had the power, even after the cessation of hostilities, to regulate a shortage of housing caused primarily by the war. The necessary and proper clause requires that the war power be held over to treat the effects of war. Although this holding, read broadly, would authorize the war power to used during peace to regulate long-term effects of war and swallow up the Ninth and Tenth amendments, we must assume that Congress will act responsibly and take into account its constitutional limits when exercising the war power.
7. Concurrence Reasoning: [Jackson] felt that the result in this case was clear, but was worried about the potential abuse of the war power because it tended to bexercised during periods of hasty patriotism. The war power cannot last as long as the effects and consequences of war because many are permanent.
1. Missouri v. Holland, (1920); pg. 204, briefed 10/1/95
2. Facts: There were migratory birds in the northern United States that transited between the U.S. and Canada. These birds had a beneficial effect on the ecosystem by controlling the insect population, as well as being a food supply. However, the birds were being over-hunted. The U.S. and Great Britain entered into a treaty to protect the birds by delineating hunting seasons. Pursuant to the treaty, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 was passed by Congress to give effect to the U.S. side of the treaty.
3. Procedural Posture: The state of Missouri brought this action to prevent an U.S. game warden from enforcing the Act on the grounds that it violated the 10th amendment, arguing that Congress did not have to power to pass the Act without the treaty, and thus should not be able to pass the Act under the treaty because if the Act, standing alone, is in violation of the 10th amendment, then the treaty is as well.
4. Issue: Whether Congress may properly pass an Act that regulates hunting seasons for migratory birds if that Act regulates in traditionally state-controlled areas.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. Majority Reasoning: Article II, ¤ 2 expressly delegates the power of Congress to make treaties. Furthermore, Article IV declares that treaties made under the authority of the United States are the Òsupreme law of the land.Ó If the treaty is valid, then it is clearly a necessary and proper action to carry out the treaty-making power in this case. The treaty-making power derives from the authority of the United States, as an ÒorganismÓ itself. It does not matter that Congress might not have the power to pass the Act not in pursuance of a treaty, because Congress does have the power to make treaties, and the Act is a necessary and proper means to give effect to the treaty. Since the birds are important, and they transit back and forth between the countries, the United States has the power to make a treaty concerning their protection and the treaty is valid. Since the treaty is valid, the Act is valid as being necessary and proper to give effect to a valid treaty.
7. Notes: In the 1950's fear that any Constitutional limitation on Congress' power could be overriden by the broad effect given by Holmes to the treaty power in Holland led to a proposed constitutional amendment called the ÒBricker AmendmentÓ which stated that ÒA provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect,Ó and ÒA treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of a treaty.Ó However, in Reid v. Covert, these fears were put to rest by Justice Black when he stated that no agreement can Òconfer power on the Congress...which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.Ó and that Holland should be read as standing for the proposition that the 10th amendment is no barrier to the United States' power to make treaties because the states had delegated their rights as to treaties to the federal government. Although there is no explicit power in the Constitution for the Congress, independent of the treaty power, to pass laws concerning foreign affairs, it is generally regarded as implied by the fact that the United States' power to interact with other countries must lay in some body, and it rests most appropriately in Congress who has the power to make all other federal laws.
1. Gibbons v. Ogden, Part II (1824); pg. 214, briefed 10/1/95
2. Facts: See above Part I.
3. Procedural Posture: See above Part I.
4. Issue: Whether a state has the right to pass laws which affect interstate commerce concurrently with that of Congress.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: The states may severally exercise the same power to regulate commerce within their respective jurisdictions as Congress has with regard to interstate commerce. The states possessed this right before the Constitution, and so it is reserved to them under the 10th amendment to the extent that Congress has not acted on it.
7. Æ Argument: The full power to regulate interstate commerce rests with Congress. Thus, there is no residual power left to the states because the grant of the whole power is inconsistent with the existence of a residual power. The words Òto regulateÓ require the grant of the full power.
8. Majority Reasoning: Marshall reasoned that a Congressional power could, in some cases, be concurrently exercised by the states. For example, the power to tax was shared by both Congress and the states. However, the power to regulate interstate commerce could not be shared because it is by its very nature, unsharable. The states still have the power to pass ÒpoliceÓ laws, such as inspection and quarantine laws and the like which act upon a good in preparation for interstate shipment, but this is quite different from having the power to pass laws which actually regulate interstate commerce. Although the devices by which the power is exercised may appear to be the same between Congress and the states, that does not mean that the power is the same. Even if a state law encroaches upon a commerce area that the Congress has left untouched, the action necessarily interferes with Congress' commerce power if it regulates interstate commerce. Thus, it is immaterial whether the state law was passed for local ÒpoliceÓ purposes if it conflicts with Congress' ability to exercise the commerce power. The law here is then unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
1. Wilson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., (1829); pg. 216, briefed 10/1/95
2. Facts: The Æ company was authorized by Delaware law to put a dam across Black Bird creek, which was a navigable waterway flowing into the Delaware river. ¹ crashed through the dam, and was successfully sued by the Æ company for damages.
3. Procedural Posture: Wilson brought this action to invalidate the Delaware law as being in conflict with Congress' power under the commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce, which was conducted on the Creek.
4. Issue: Whether the Delaware law authorizing the Æ to dam up the navigable waterway was constitutional.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. Majority Reasoning: Marshall reasoned that the power to increase the value of the surrounding property, as well as the health of the inhabitants was well within the power of the states as long as it did not conflict with the powers of the federal government. But since Congress had passed no acts over this creek, the repugnancy of the Delaware law must be measured wholly according to its repugnancy to the dormant commerce power. In this case, the Delaware law can not be considered as repugnant to the dormant commerce power.
1. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of The Port of Philadelphia, (1851); pg. 219, briefed 10/1/95.
2. Facts: A Pennsylvania law of 1803 required ships entering or leaving Philadelphia harbor to hire a local pilot. For failure to comply, Cooley was fined. The proceeds from the fines went to a fund used to support retired pilots and their dependents. Also, a 1789 congressional statute stated that all previous piloting laws were expressly adopted, and the states had the right to enact further similar laws until Congress saw fit to enact laws in this area.
3. Procedural Posture: Cooley sued for the penalty, claiming that the law was unconsitutional as being in conflict with the dormant Commerce power.
4. Issue: Whether the law was unconsitutional as being in conflict with the dormant Commerce power.
5. Holding: No.
6. Majority Reasoning: The regulation of pilots is regulation of navigation, and thus regulation of commerce. The 1789 Act, although it expressly adopts existing piloting laws, can not grant any more power to the states than does the constitution. Thus, if the commerce power is exclusive in this area, the Act is inoperative and the local law is unconstitutional. However, since the field of commerce is so diverse, it requires laws of varying scope. Some facets of interstate commerce require uniform national laws by their very nature. Others require purely local legislation to meet diverse needs. Those that require uniform national laws must be said to be exclusively regulated by Congress, thus barring any state action in that area even when the commerce power is dormant. However, in this case, there is a manifested intent of congress to leave this area of commerce to local regulation. Thus, this is an example where the commerce power can coexist between the state and federal government if the federal government has not actuall passed a law in that area. The determinative factor of whether a state law is repugnant to the constitution in the face of the dormant commerce power is the ÒsubjectÓ of the regulation, not the ÒpurposeÓ behind it.
1. South Carolina State Hwy. Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., (1938); pg. 226, briefed 10/1/95
2. Facts: A 1933 South Carolina law prohibited trucks that were more than 90 inches wide or had a gross weight of over 20,000 pounds from travelling on South Carolina highways. About 85% to 90% of the nations trucks exceeded these limits. The law was passed to preserve the highways from damage.
3. Procedural Posture: The trial court found that substantial burdens were put on interstate commerce by this law, and that it was an unreasonable means of protecting the highways because it was tied to gross weight instead of axle weight.
4. Issue: Whether the South Carolina law is unconstitutional as an impermissible conflict with the dormant commerce power.
5. Holding: No.
6. Majority Reasoning: There are matters of local state concern, the regulation of which unavoidably involves some regulation of interstate commerce, but which, because of their local character and diversity, may not be fully dealt with by congress. A state has an adequate local interest in preserving its highways. Thus, it can pass local laws to regulate the size of shipping on those highways. The fact that this necessarily affects interstate commerce is immaterial because, so long as the law does not discriminate, which this one does not, the power is reserved to the states to regulate. It is not the judicial function to determine whether the standard is the best approach or not, but only to determine whether it is without a rational basis.
2. Facts: The Arizona Train Limit Law of 1912 prohibited operating railroad trains of more than a prescribed length. Reducing the length of the trains was said to increase safety because of less Òslack actionÓ which caused trains to behave uncontrollably. However, the length limit required the train operators to run about 30% more trains, and cost Southern Pacific about a million dollars/year in extra costs. About 95% of all rail traffic in Arizona was interstate, and so it affected train operations from Texas to California.
3. Procedural Posture: In 1940, Arizona sued Sourthern Pacific for the statutory penalties for violating the law. The trial court found the law to be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, and further found that it was not justified by local safety concerns because the increase in safety by reducing the slack action was offset by the decrease in safety of more trains. The state supreme court reversed, concluding that a state police law, based on safety, could not be overturned even though it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
4. Issue: Whether the total effect of the state law as a safety measure in reducing accidents is too small to outweigh the national interest in keeping interstate commerce free of burdens where a uniform national regulation is needed.
5. Holding: Yes.
6. Majority Reasoning: The general rule is that the states do not have the authority to substantially impede the free flow of commerce where the need for national uniformity in laws demand that the regulation be done at the national level. However, this case lies between the two extremes of clearly needing national regulation, and clearly needing a local police measure. Thus, it calls for a balancing of the state and federal interests. The findings show that the increase in safety is small if at all. Also, if the length of trains is to be regulated, it must be done uniformly for efficiency. Since the Arizona Law is a substantial burden on commerce where a need for uniformity exists, and does not have an adequate police justification, it is unconstitutional.
7. Dissent Reasoning: [Black] thought that the balancing test was best left to the legislature and not the judiciary. [Douglas] felt that the state legislation was adequately tied to safety and thus entitled to a presumption of validity.
1. Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, (1951); pg. 247, briefed 10/1/95
2. Fact: Madison, Wis., has a local ordinance which prohibits the sale within Madison of any milk which has not been pastuerized within a 5 mile radius of the city of Madison. The three pastuerizing plants within that radius are subject to rigourous local safety laws. Dean Milk operates out of Chicago, and its facility meets Federal safety standards.
3. Procedural Posture: Dean Milk brought this action to strike down the Madison law after it was denied a license to sell milk there. The state court rejected the commerce clause attack.
4. Issue: Whether the discrimination inherent in the Madison ordinance can be justified in view of the character of the local interests and the available methods of protecting them.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: The regulation of milk in this manner is a substantial burden upon interstate commerce because it plainly discriminates against interstate commerce.
7. Æ Argument: The ordinance is valid because it is a good-faith attempt to police health of the milk supply. It is valid regardless of its affect on interstate commerce, because the states have the power to enact local police laws that are not in conflict with existing federal legislation.
8. Majority Reasoning: The statute clearly is a barrier to interstate commerce. It has a discriminatory effect, even if it is not purposefully discriminatory. If it were held valid simply because it were related to health, then the Commerce Clause would be powerless because a state could enact a burdensome and protective law on the pretext of health. Since there are alternative methods for assuring the same degree of health protection, the local law's interest in health does not outweigh the national interests in non-discriminatory interstate commerce practices. It would be just as effective for the local ordinance to require higher standards without requiring local processing. A model federal provision existed that would adequately safeguard the public health.
1. CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., (1987); pg. 272, briefed 10/1/95
2. Facts: Indiana passed a corporate takeover law which stated that should any party acquire a controlling interest in the number of shares he held, he could only acquire voting rights on those shares to the extent approved by a majority vote of the prior disinterested stockholders.
3. Procedural Posture: The lower court held that the law was unconsitutional as being a hindrance to tender offers, and thus an interstate commerce burden.
4. Issue: Whether the Indiana law is unconstitutional as being in conflict with the dormant Commerce Clause.
5. Holding: No.
6. Æ Argument: Tender offers should generally be favored because they represent a shifting of property rights to their highest value use. Also, the state of Indiana has no interest in protecting non-resident shareholders.
7. Majority Reasoning: A state has the fundamental right ot pass laws concerning the regulation of corporations it establishes. They are only unconsitutional if they discriminate against interstate commerce. Since this law has the same effect on interstate commerce as well as intrastate commerce, meaning that all shareholders and tender offers are treated the same regardless of locality, then it does not discriminate. The state regulation of corporations necessarily has some effect on interstate commerce, since the shares are traded internationally. However, there is stability in knowing that the corporation is subject to one set of regulations - that of its home state.
8. Concurrence Reasoning: [Scalia] stated that there was no consitutional basis for any balancing test when determining whether a local interest outweighs a federal interest. Whether the burden on commerce imposed by a statute is excessive in relation to its benefit is a question for the legislature, not the judiciary.
1. United Building & Constr. Trades v. Camden, (1984); pg. 282, briefed 10/8/95
2. Facts: The city of Camden N.J. passed a municipal ordinance requiring that at least 40% of the employees of contractors and subcontractors working on city construction projects be Camden residents.
3. Procedural Posture: ¹ challenged the constitutionality of that ordinance under the Privileges and Immunities clause. The state supreme court of New Jersey rejected the attack on the grounds that the ordinance discriminates on the basis of municipal residency and not state residency, and thus declined to broaden the interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause beyond the literal language in the constitution.
4. Issue: Whether the Camden ordinance is constitutional under the privileges and immunities clause.
5. Holding: No.
6. Æ Argument: The clause does not apply to a municipal ordinance. By its own language, it applies only to state laws which discriminate based on state residency. This ordinance discriminates equally against state residents and non-state residents as long as they are non-Camden residents. Even if it does apply to municipal ordinances, in this case the law is necessary to counteract grave social and economic ills, of which the out-of-city employees are a primary cause. Because they Òlive off ofÓ Camden without residing in Camden, these out-of-city employees promote Òmiddle-class flightÓ from Camden, resulting in a depleted tax base.
7. Majority Reasoning: First, the privileges and immunities clause does apply to strictly municipal ordinances because what would be unconstitutional if done by the state can be no more readily accomplished by the city acting under the authority of the state. Also, a person who lives out of state will be just as discriminated against regardless of whether the ordinance also discriminates against other state residents. The out-of-state resident has no chance to remedy the law by participating in the local political process. Determination of validity must therefore proceed under the two-step process. First, whether the ordinance burdens a ÒfundamentalÓ privilege or immunity protected by the clause, and second, whether there is a good balancing reason for allowing it anyway. Although a Commerce Clause analysis can distinguish between cities acting as regulators (conflict with the dormant Commerce Clause) and cities acting as participants (no conflict), the privileges and immunities clause imposes a direct restraint on the local legislature without regard to whether they are acting as a participant. Clearly, the opportunity to seek employment with private employers, whether or not they work Òfor the cityÓ, is a fundamental right protected by the clause. As to whether the law is nontheless justified, it can only discriminate against out-of-city residents who are shown to Òconstitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed.Ó Here, there are no findings as to whether the out-of-city residents are an ÒevilÓ with regard to Camden's law, thus the case must be remanded for trial and specific findings to that extent.
8. Dissent Reasoning: The privileges and immunities clause has long been interpreted as applying only to state laws that discriminate against out-of-state residents. The majority cites no historical basis for broadening its scope. Furthermore, the out-of-state resident's interests are adequately protected by the voters who are not residents of Camden, but still residents of New Jersey.
9. Notes: In Supreme Ct. of New Hampshire v. Piper (1985), the court struck down a state law prohibiting non-state residents from being admitted to the state bar under the privileges and immunities clause. The court found that Piper's claim involved a ÒprivilegeÓ because the practice of law is Òimportant to the national economy.Ó The court also found that there was no substantial justification for the difference in treatment between state residents and others. In Edwards v. California (1941); the court struck down the anti-Okie law which forbade bringing indigent persons into the state. The majority opinion relied entirely on the commerce clause, but a concurrence by Douglas stated that the privileges and immunities clause was a better rationale because the right of mobility of persons is more fundamental than that of products.
1. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Comm'n., (1983); gp. 292, briefed 10/8/95
2. Facts: A California law imposed a moratorium on the certification of nuclear energy plants until a state agency found that there existed a demonstrated means for disposal of high-level radioactive waste generated by the nuclear power plants. There was evidence in the State legislative record that the law was passed for economical reasons, such as regulating the price of electricity, because an increase in the number of nuclear power plants without an increase in radioactive disposal capacity could result in the shutdown of existing plants and the subsequent instability of electricity prices.
3. Procedural Posture: P.G.&E. brought an action for declaratory judgment against the law, claiming that it was preemted by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The District Court granted relief, the Court of Appeal reversed, and P.G.&E. appealed to the Supreme Court.
4. Issue: Whether the California statutory moratorium on the certification of nuclear power plants is preemted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
5. Holding: No.
6. ¸ Argument: 1. The state law is preempted because it regulates construction of nuclear plants based on safety reasons. Since the AEA's primary function is exclusive federal safety regulation, there is no room here for the state to regulate. 2. The statute conflicts with actual decisions made by Congress and the NRC. 3. The statute frustrates the AEA's goal of the development of nuclear technology.
7. Æ Argument: Although safety regulation of nuclear plants is forbidden, a state may completely prohibit new construction until its safety concerns are satisfied by the federal government.
8. Majority Reasoning: Historically, the federal government has taken efforts to ensure that nuclear power is developed and operated safely, while leaving police regulations of the economics of electricity generated by nuclear energy to the states themselves. This is evidenced by the AEA's own language when it states that nothing in it is to be construed as affecting the authority of any local government to regulate the Ògeneration, sale or transmission of electric power produced through the use of nuclear facilities.Ó Thus, the federal government has explicitly left this power to the states; it is not impliedly preempted by the mere existence of the AEA. However, the federal goverment, by the AEA, has exclusively retained the right to regulate nuclear safety, and so the state has no power to regulate in that specific area. Since there is legislative history evidence that the law was passed as primarily an economic, and not a safety matter, the court accepted California's representation that they were not attempting to regulate safety. Even though the Congress and the NRC have recently passed legislation that it is safe and permissible to continue to certify new power plants, the state is in no way compelled to do so. Thus, compliance with both the federal and state statutes are possible here, and so the statute is not expressly preempted. Lastly, the even though the AEA's purpose was to promote the safe development and use of nuclear energy, that was not to be accomplished at all costs. So the statute is not impliedly preempted as being an obstruction of a Congressional purpose.
9. Notes: In Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., (1947), Justice Douglas stated that the test in whether a local law was preempted was the intent of Congress. In areas that were traditionally state-regulated, any action by Congress was presumed not to preempt unless it was the Òclear and manifest purpose of Congress.Ó There were three ways to divine this purpose: 1. If the federal scheme of regulation was so pervasive as to infer that Congress left no room for state regulation, 2. Where the federal interest is so dominant that it outweighs the state interests, and 3. The state law produces a result inconsistent with the federal objective. Note the similarity between this analysis of preemption by actual legislation, and the Cooley ÒbalancingÓ analysis with regard to the dormant commerce clause. In Campbell v. Hussey (1961), Justice Douglas' plurality opinion struck down a local Georgia statute requiring that tobacco that was grown (locally) according to federal regulations be marked with a white tag (tobacco grown out-of-state in Carolina was to be marked with a blue tag). He rejected the argument that the Georgia statute was constitutional because it merely ÒsupplementedÓ the federal regulations. In this case the question of preemption did not need actual conflict between the federal and state law, because one could draw an inference from the structure of the federal regulation scheme that there was no room for state augmentation. [See point 1 in Rice, above.] Compare this result with the commerce clause rejection under the rationale of local discrimination in the Washington Apple case. However, in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, the court distinguished Campbell by stating that there was neither an actual nor presumed conflict based on the federal regulatory design.
1. Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, (1833); pg. 397, briefed 10/22/95
2. Facts: Barron was a wharf owner. The city of Baltimore, in an effort to construct some streets, diverted part of the flow of some streams feeding the Baltimore harbor. This caused sandbars to form around Barron's wharf, making it too shallow for most ships to do business there.
3. Procedural Posture: Barron sued the city for taking his property Òfor public use, without just compensationÓ under the 5th Amendment. The trial court awarded him damages, but the court of appeals reversed.
4. Issue: Whether the guarantee in the 5th Amendment that private property shall not be taken Òfor public use, without just compensationÓ is applicable to state governments as well as the federal government.
5. Holding: No.
6. Majority Reasoning: Marshall felt the answer was easy. The historical context of the framing of the constitution implied that the general guarantees in the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not state governments. The purpose of the constitution was to ordain and establish a federal government, not state governments. Thus, any limitations on that power should be construed as applying to the federal government, since states have their own constitutions. The structure of the constitution shows that there was a plain line drawn between the powers and limitations of the federal and state governments, and so if the framers meant for these limitations to apply to states, they could have made such intent clear. The bill of rights itself was a guarantee against the encroachment of federal government. That is where the fear resided. There was no need for security against local governments, and so none was asked for.
2. Facts: A Louisiana law of 1869 created a state corporation for the slaughtering of livestock. The corporation was given exclusive power to slaughter livestock, and all other private slaughterhouses were required to close. Independent butchers could use the corporations facilities for a charge, but could not conduct independent operations.
3. Procedural Posture: The butchers not included in the monopoly claimed that the law deprived them of their right to Òexercise their tradeÓ and challenged it under the 13th and 14th amendments. The highest state court sustained the law.
4. Issue: Whether the 13th and 14th amendments guarantee federal protection of individual rights of all citizens of the United States against discrimination by their own state governments.
5. Holding: No.
6. Majority Reasoning: The states have the proper police power to limit slaughter house operations for the health and safety of their residents. The meaning of the 13th and 14th amendments must be derived from the historical context of the problems they were designed to remedy, namely African slavery. The Congress, after the end of the Civil War, sought to strenghten the freedom of the former slaves by passing these amendments. The word ÒservitudesÓ in the 13th amendment refers to Òpersonal servitudes&Oacut
