PS 331: the Constitution and the Federal System
PS 331: The Constitution and the Federal System
Dr. Kreider
Lecture Outline: Federalism, State Regulation, and the Question of “State Sovereignty”
I. Commerce Clause vs. Tenth Amendment “State Sovereignty”
A. Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (1791)
B. Commerce Clause: “[Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
C. Can Congress pass a law under its commerce clause power that infringes upon the States’ reserved powers?
1. No: National League of Cities v. Usery (1976): By a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court rules that there are limits upon the power of Congress to override state sovereignty, even when Congress is acting pursuant to their commerce power. Led by Justice Rehnquist, the Court laid down the principle that there exists “attributes of sovereignty attached to every state government” which Congress cannot touch. Key Question: How do we determine what are the “attributes of state sovereignty”?
2. Yes: Garcia v. SAMTA (1985): By another 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court overturns Usery and declares that state interests are protected by the structure of American government (or process) and states do not have special tasks that Congress cannot touch under its commerce power. Justice Harry Blackmun switches his vote in Usery to make the fifth and deciding vote.
II. The Tenth Amendment and “State Sovereignty”
A. Key Question: What limits does the Tenth Amendment place on Congress when it is not acting under its commerce power?
B. New York v. United States (1992): Faced with the constitutionality of a congressional action, giving the states the “option” of taking title to and possession of low-level radioactive waste or regulating the waste according to federal statutes, the Supreme Court declared the “option” as nothing more than “coercion,” and, therefore, unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment protects States from such heavy-handed actions by Congress.
(a). Should it matter constitutionally that the New York state government supported this regulation, and the state’s congressional delegation voted overwhelmingly for it?
(b). How does Justice O’Connor interpret the Tenth Amendment in this case? On what constitutional basis does Justice O’Connor rest her decision on, the Tenth Amendment or the Commerce Clause? Why did the Court elect not to overrule Garcia?
C. Printz v. United States (1997): Supreme Court rules that certain provisions of the popular Brady Bill, which commanded state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers, were violative of the Tenth Amendment.
(a). How does Justice Scalia determine whether the Constitution (Tenth Amendment) allows the federal government to use state and local law enforcement officials to implement the Brady Bill?
(b). Do the opinions (majority, concurring, and dissenting) offer formalist or functionalist interpretations of the Constitution? Provide evidence.
III. The Eleventh Amendment and “State Sovereignty”
A. Eleventh Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign States.”
B. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996): Supreme Court rules that Congress cannot abrogate (take away) the States’ sovereign immunity from suits in federal court enforcing congressional legislation passed under the Commerce Clause. In this particular case, the Supreme Court struck down the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which allowed Indian tribes to conduct certain gaming activities only in accordance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. States have a duty to negotiate in good faith and the Indian tribes could sue in federal court to guarantee it.
C. Alden v. Maine (1999): State probation officers filed suit in state court against the state of Maine to enforce overtime provisions found in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. By a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court extended Seminole Tribe of Florida to include sovereign immunity for states in their own courts.
D. Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002): The Supreme Court again extended state sovereign immunity, this time to independent federal agency proceedings (Federal Maritime Commission in this case)
E. Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000): At issue in Kimel was whether Congress could abrogate state sovereign immunity under §5 of the 14th Amendment (enforcement provision). Congress voiced an intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity of suits brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) but a five-member majority said that Congress could do no such thing.
F. Alabama v. Garrett (2001): Supreme Court rules – by the same 5 to 4 lineup as in Kimel – that Congress, although intending to do so, could not abrogate state sovereign immunity from suits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Congress’s §5 enforcement power would have been valid but, according to the Court, Congress did not present clear and convincing evidence that States had a history of discriminating against the disabled.
G. Tennessee v. Lane (2004): In a much narrower ruling, the Court (5 to 4, with J. O’Connor switching) ruled that Congress could abrogate state sovereign immunity to suits under Title II of the ADA (public access to courtrooms).