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

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

Challenged Law-- Bituminous Coal Conservation Act
Unconsitutional
Commerce Clause
Justice Sutherland

United States v Butler (1936)

United States v. Butler (1936)
297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80 L.Ed. 477

Majority: Roberts, Butler, Hughes, McReynolds, Sutherland, Van Devanter.

Dissenting- Stone (opinion), Brandeis, Cardozo.

BACKGROUND- As part of the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, Congress implemented a processing tax on agricultural commodities, from which funds would be redistributed to farmers who promised to reduce their acreage. The Act intended to solve the crisis in agricultural commodity prices which was causing many farmers to go under.

Major constitutional question: Did Congress have the right to regulate and control agricultural production as legislated in the AAA?

DECISION- No.

Author: Justice Roberts

Opinion of the Court: While the Hamiltonian position interpreting the taxing andspending clause is an expansive one and indeed the correct one, Congress nevertheless is limited in its act. The regulation of agricultural production is a a local matter, not subject to the will of Congress-- this very fact is guaranteed by the 10th amendment. Powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are generally prohibited and reserved to the states.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Stone, joined by Brandeis and Cardozo):  In this case the court should have deferred to the legislature. The taxing and spending power includes the attempt of the Agricultural Adjustment Act to relieve the nation from the effects of the Great Depression.

  

The Oyez Project, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1936/1936_98/>
(last visited Wednesday, March 18, 2009).

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)
299 U.S. 304, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255

Majority: Sutherland, Brandeis, Butler, Cardozo, Hughes, Roberts, Van Devanter. 7-1.

Dissenting (without opinion): McReynolds. Not participating- Stone.

Background: In an effort to calm down a war between Bolivia and Paraguay, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the president to issue an arms embargo by proclamation. The Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. was found shipping machine guns to Bolivia, in violation of the embargo. Their defense held that the congress delegated an unconstitutional legislative power to the president.

Major Constitional Question: Did Congress in its Joint Resolution unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the President?

Decision: No.

Author: Sutherland

Opinion of the Court: The management of foreign affairs is the exclusive province of the chief executive of the United States. It is wholly within the President's power to proclaim such an embargo, as it has to deal with external affairs. The President's power in such foreign affairs is plenary; it is not so within the realm of congress. Congress does not negotiate with other states, it's the President's job to do that. Justice Sutherland argued because "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation," Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external matters which would not be afforded domestically.

Stafford v. Wallace (1922)

Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
258 U.S. 495, 42 S.Ct. 397, 66 L.Ed. 735

Majority: CJ Taft, Brandeis, Clarke, Holmes, McKenna, Pitney, De Vanter.
Dissenting (without opinion): McReynolds. Not participating: Day.

BACKGROUND: In 1921 Congress enacted the Packers and Stockyards Act to regulate activities of meat packers that were unfair, discriminatory, deceptive, or that encouraged the formation of monopolies. Stafford, the petitioner of a livestock firm, sued the Secretary of Agriculture Wallace for the reason:

"That the operation of stockyards did not constitute interstate commerce, and therefore Congress did not have authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921."

Major Constitutional Question: Does the United States Congress have the authority to regulate the operation of stockyards as permitted by the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921?

Decision of the Court: Yes it does.

Author of the opinion: Chief Justice Taft

Opinion of the Court: The regulation of the stockyards is within the constitutional authority of the Congress. The stockyards were not "places of rest or a final destination," hence they fell under the interstate commerce clause's jurisdiction. These stockyards are considered "a throat through which the current of commerce flows." Hence, "the orders of the District Court refusing the interlocutory injunctions are affirmed."

Good source-- http://law.jrank.org/pages/13658/Stafford-v-Wallace.html

Hammer v Dagenhart

Notes for Week 8

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
247 U.S. 251, 38 S.Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed. 1101

Majority: Day, McReynolds, Pitney, Van Devanter, CJ (Chief Justice) White.
Dissenting- Holmes, Brandeis, Clarke, McKenna.

Background: The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 forbade the shipment in interstate commerce of products of child labor. Dagenhart sued on behalf oh his freedom to allow his 14 year old son to work in a textile mill.

Major Constitutional Question: Does the congressional act regulating child labor violate the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

DECISON: Yes.

Author: Justice Day.

Opinion of the Court: Production is not subject to regulation, because it is not a part of commerce. The regulation of production is a power "not expressly delegated to the U.S." (Day) but reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment