The Return of Dual Federalism

Federalism returned....
In National League of Cities v. Usery (1976), Rehnquist, in a 5-4 decision, declared that Congress could not extend the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the FLSA to employees of states and their political subdivisions. To do so was to regulate "the States as states."

Federalism beat....
In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), NLOC was overruled as the FLSA's regulation of SAMTA was found to be constitutional. Justice Blackmun, one of the majority in NLOC, wrote the majority opinion.

Federalism returned....

In United States v. Lopez (1995) the Court invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act as being beyond the scope of the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court may have done so to rebuke Congress for failing to demonstrate a clear nexus between firearms in or near schools and interstate commerce itself, therefore the Court was unwilling to defer to Congress without such substantiation.

In United States v. Morrison (2000), the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act was found to be unsupported neither by the power of congress to regulate interstate commerce nor by its power to enforce the 14th Amendment provisions. This in spite of the effects on interstate commerce included in case evidence. CJ Rehnquist wrote the majority
opinion, emphasizing the Court's duty to draw the line between what could properly be the subject of national regulation and what could not. "The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." Most violence has been traditionally within the jurisdiction of the states.

Triumph of national power....
In Tennessee v. Lane (2004), Title II of the ADA was held a valid exercise of Congress' authority to enforce the guarantees of the 14th Amendment.Tthe Court held that Congress had sufficiently demonstrated the problems faced by disabled persons who sought to exercise fundamental rights protected by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment (such as access to a court).

In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Morrison and Lopez dissenters, along with Kennedy and Scalia, agreed that the Controlled Substances Act could regulate marijuana use (by authority of the Commerce power to regulate) even amidst the presence of California's Compassionate Use Act which allowed for the use thereof.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

Executive Order authorizing the Department of Commerce to seize much-needed steel factories to support Korean War effort.

Unconstitutional.

Overstepping executive authority. Separation of powers-checks and balances.

Korematsu v United States (1944)

Executive Order 9066- subsequent exclusion order of Japanese persons

Majority Opinon: Black, joined by Stone, Reed, Douglas, Rutledge, Frankfurter.

Dissent: Roberts, Murphy, Jackson

Constitutional
Valid exercise of war power and commander-in-chief power in concert with necessary and proper clause.

Dissenting Opinion- Murphy dismissed the decision as stepping into "the ugly abyss of racism."

Wickard v Filburn (1942)

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 mandated acreage quotas for wheat production
Constitutional.

Congress can regulate agriculture and mining in addition to other industries' market systems to regulate interstate commerce. Deference to legislature. If there's any national economic link to commerce, it can be regulated by Congress.

Justice Jackson

U.S. v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)

The Beginning of the Roosevelt Court- from Darby Lumber, Wickard v Filburn, Korematsu v. U.S., to Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938-- Sweeping new legislation that prohibited shipment of goods made in substandard conditions interstate and fixed minimum wages and maximum hours for interstate-related work.

Unanimous Majority: Stone, Black, Douglas, Frankfurter, McReynolds, Murphy, Reed, Roberts, Stone

Majority Opinion: Justice Stone
Justice Stone concludes the prohibition is constitutional exercise of commerce power while the regulation of labor was constitutional action authorized by the commerce clause AND necessary and proper clause

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

1913 Minimum Wage Law (Washington State)
Constitutional
Majority: Hughes, Brandeis, Cardozo, Roberts, Stone.
Dissenting- The Four Horsemen: Sutherland, Butler, McReynolds, Van Devanter.
Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Hughes.

Constitution does not explicitly protect "freedom of contract." The liberty in question is subject to the restraints of due process. Valid exercise of state's police power. The decision in Adkins v. Children's Hospital striking down a similar minimum wage law was overruled.

NLRB v. Jones-Laughlin Steel Corp.

(1937)

National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act)- National Labor Relations Board order
Constitutional
Commerce Clause (Marshall interpretation); deference to legislature
Chief Justice Hughes