Document: 392 U.S. 183 88 S.Ct. 2017 20 L.Ed.2d 1020 MARYLAND et al., Appellants,v.W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, al. No. 742. Argued April 23, 1968. Decided June 10, [Syllabus from pages 183-184 intentionally omitted] Alan M. Wilner, Baltimore, Md. and Charles Wright, Austin, Tex., for appellants. Solicitor Gen., Erwin N. Griswold, appellees. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 As originally enacted,1 Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 required every employer to pay each his employees 'engaged in commerce or production goods commerce'2 a certain minimum hourly wage, at higher rate work excess maximum number hours per week. The defined term 'employer' so as exclude 'the United States any State political subdivision * *.'3 This case involves constitutionality two sets amendments original enactment. 2 In 1961, Congress changed basis employee coverage: instead extending protection individually connected interstate commerce, now covers all 'enterprise' engaged provided enterprise also falls within listed categories.4 1966, added list categories following: 3 '(4) is operation hospital, an institution primarily care sick, aged, mentally ill defective who reside on premises such institution, school physically handicapped gifted children, elementary secondary school, education (regardless whether not Lospital, public private operated profit profit).'5 4 At same time, modified definition remove exemption their subdivisions with respect hospitals, institutions, schools.6 5 Maryland, since joined by 27 other one district, brought this action against enjoin enforcement insofar it applies schools hospitals subdivisions. plaintiffs made four contentions. They argued that expansion coverage through 'enterprise concept' was beyond power under Commerce Clause. contended state-operated power. asserted remedial provisions Act,7 if applied States, would conflict Eleventh Amendment. Finally, they urged even constitutional arguments were rejected, court should declare enterprises, do have statutorily relationship commerce. 6 A three-judge district court, convened pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2282, declined issue declaratory judgment injunction.8 Three opinions written. Judges Winter Thomsen, constituting majority, concluded different reasons adoption extension state institutions could be said, face Act, exceed Congress' Both consider Amendment statutory Judge Northrop dissented, concluding exceeded because transgressed sovereignty States. 7 We noted probable jurisdiction plaintiffs' appeal, 389 1031, 772, 19 819. For follow, we affirm District I. 8 turn first 1961 concept.' Whereas extended 'who commerce,' protects 'is employed commerce.'9 Such which, along qualifications, 'has *.'10 Thus effect change extend fellow been protected but enlarge class employers subject Act. 9 v. Darby, 312 100, 61 451, 85 L.Ed. 609, Court found legitimate exercise congressional regulate among Appellants accept Darby decision, contend those covered exceeds conclude, contrary, settled reasoning itself independently established principles stated cases. 10 involved producing Their manufacturing intrastate activity, had no wages employees. step Court's answer clear: '(Congress may) appropriate legislation activities where substantial commerce.'11 11 next discover 'substantial effect' existed. substandard excessive hours, when imposed company shipping into gave exporting advantage over companies importing Having found, decided matter policy competition 'unfair' one, additional undesirable driving down labor conditions States.12 course concerned only finding competition, consequent decisions. accepting finding, followed judicial review recently rearticulated Katzenbach McClung, 379 294, 303 304, 377, 383, 13 290: 12 'Of course, mere fact has said particular activity shall deemed affect does preclude further examination But find legislators rational chosen regulatory scheme necessary our investigation end.'13 There obviously 'rational basis' logical inference company's competitive position. 14 stop When business, its elsewhere affected significant costs, merely physical contact question. Consequently, surprising already explicitly recognized choice enterprises constitutionally compelled; rather, decided, 'not enter areas which might occupied (under power).' Kirschbaum Co. Walling, 316 517, 522, 62 1116, 1120, 86 1638. 15 supported wholly line analysis. tended lead disputes strikes, strife disrupted businesses flow affected.14 therefore chose promote peace regulation matter, wages, out frequently arise. objective particularly relevant where, here,15 question are importers 16 Although did examine second cases statutes regulating order protect strife. National Relations Act16 passed 17 '(t)he denial right organize refusal procedure collective bargaining strikes forms industrial unrest, intent burdening obstructing *.'17 18 Board Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 1, 57 615, 81 893, held (NLRA) essence decision contained propositions: stoppage (respondent's) operations most serious upon id., 41, S.Ct., 626; '(e)xperience abundantly demonstrated recognition self-organizztion representatives own choosing purpose often essential condition peace.' Id., 42, 626. including present coverage, may propositions. One identical proposition supporting NLRA: disrupting disrupt parallel there logic experience conclusion group employees, personally production, entire enterprise. Whether defended 'competition' theory 'labor dispute' theory, true having few very much often. defining terms sometimes permit tail wag dog.' However, while some instances left courts administrative agencies task determining instance, affects commerce.18 then 'within reach federal power.'19 contention Clause excise, trivial, individual falling rationally put entirely rest. Wickard Filburn, 317 111, 127—128, 63 82, 90—91, 87 122; Polish Nat. Alliance North America Board, 322 643, 648, 64 1196, 1199, 1509; supra, U.S., 301, 382. enlarged addition concept. decided. II. 21 Appellants' afford Since argument interference 'sovereign functions,' important note exactly what does. 'employees,' specifically exempts 'employee bona fide executive, administrative, professional capacity (including academic personnel teacher schools) *.'20 assume, Court,21 medical likewise excluded general language. establishes wage limit unless overtime paid, otherwise way hospital duties performed. appellants' characterization may, guise power, tell how perform educational functions factually accurate. 'interfered with' these extent providing employs people performing restrictions wide range whose privately hospitals.22 22 It clear can facts stipulated indicate major users imported example: 23 'In current fiscal year estimated $38.3 billion will spent local 1965, authorities $3.9 operating hospitals. 24 'For typical plaintiff 87% $8 million supplies equipment system during 1965 represented direct purchases. Over 55% $576,000 drugs, x-ray beds University Maryland Hospital seven out-of-state purchases.'23 25 Similar figures supplied States.24 Strikes stoppages involving events unfortunately infrequent,25 interrupt burden across lines. exists prescribing standards enterprises.26 26 Indeed, appellants without must yield performance governmental functions. simply tenable. 'doctrine implied Federal Constitution governments, national state, powers interfere free full other.' Case Bowles, 327 92, 101, 66 438, 443, 90 552. place, Government, acting delegated override countervailing interests described 'governmental' 'proprietary' character. long ago Sanitary Chicago 266 405, 45 176, 69 352, rest concerns 'outweigh' importance valid statute limits diversion water Lake Michigan. unanimous Court, speaking Holmes, declared sanitary district's alleged need more than law allowed 'irrelevant' 'superior provide welfare necessities inhabitants.' 426, 178. See Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 508, 1050, 1487. 29 remains, 'otherwise commerce.' always though broad indeed, limits. Chief Marshall paused recognize staked vast expanse authority economic life new Nation. Gibbons Ogden, Wheat. 194—195, 23. Hughes, Term after he Laughlin, thus: 30 'The still 'commerce,' foreign nations several states. vastly increased differentiation obtains.' Santa Cruz Fruit Packing 453, 466, 58 656, 660, 82 954. 31 ample prevent purport fear, utter destruction sovereign entity.'27 32 limits, regulations cease involved. If engaging validly regulated Government persons, too forced conform regulation. California, 297 175, 56 421, 80 567. railroad, State, nonprofit venture facilitating transportation port, nevertheless subject, like railroads, Safety Appliance although railroad between points rail transportation. 181 183, 422—424. proceeded claim Act,' reasoned follows: 33 '(W)e think unimportant say conducts 'sovereign' 'private' capacity. That reserved states cannot doubed. whatever capacity, subordination granted government. necessarily diminished grants government Constitution. 34 look traditionally marking boundary restriction taxing limitation plenary deny authorized individual.' 183—185, 424 (citations omitted). 35 Trustees Illinois 289 48, 53 509, 77 1025, rejected 'state sovereignty' university scientific apparatus abroad import 36 principle California controlling here. somewhat directly less central sovereignty, misses mark. examined continue determine regarding them carve up indistinguishable businesses, happen run benefit citizens.28 III. 37 raise issues, both inappropriate explore fully proceeding. agree. conclude showing warrants injunctive relief. neither however, mean future consideration 38 violates States' immunity suit guaranteed Amendment.29 provides 39 'Any section 206 (wages) 207 (hours) title liable amount unpaid compensation be, equal liquidated damages. Action recover liability maintained competent *.' 216(b). 40 suits compensation, 216(c) relief violations, 217. 41 Percolating problems immunity, agency, consent suit. Cf. Parden Terminal R. Alabama, 377 184, 84 1207, 233. applying substantive requirements not, view, possibility remedies available employer-defendant. Particularly light Act's 'separability' provision, 219, see reason strike portions hypothetical decline drawn abstract discussion numerous complex issues arise connection various provisions. almost impossible unnecessary resolve advance facts, claims, identified defendants. Questions 42 remaining presents similar problems. 43 'employees handling, selling, working moved produced person 203(s) (1964 ed., Supp. II). 44 ask us word 'goods' 'goods delivery actual possession ultimate consumer thereof producer, manufacturer, processor thereof.' 203(i). consumers products buy, hence none handles sense. correct declining decide, general, production. whole, purchase commodities. These variety uses, presumably ranging incorporation building materials structures, over-the-counter sale cash patients, visitors, students, teachers. handling cf. Walling Jacksonville Paper 564, 332, 460, considered occasion requires. 46 affirmed. 47 Affirmed. 48 MARSHALL took part case. 49 DOUGLAS, whom STEWART concurs, dissenting. 50 skillfully brings state-owned Clause; semantics unexceptionable federalism standard. done here nonetheless invasion Tenth my view consistent federalism. 51 echoes New York 326 572, 310, 326, divided tax mineral waters owned marketed York. My dissent 'for privilege exercising Constitution.' 596, 321. 52 takes bite. 1966 require escalating $1.60 hour 1971.1 rule, make week 1/2 times regular wage.2 civil sanctions subdivisions,3 officials apparently, subjected criminal penalties.4 impact pervasive, striking levels below, 269 F.Supp. 826, 853: 'By forcing, threat penalties, legislature responsible 54 '1. increase taxes (an impossibility amendment); 55 '2. curtail calibre services related state; '3. reduce indispensable meet budgets favored Congress; '4. refrain entering fields necessitated changing social conditions.' doubt threaten autonomy health education. Yet, considers irrelevant enforced 'whether States.' totally immune Congress. 233, 567, railroads Employers' Liability seq., seq.; customs imported. 1487, permitted condemn 100,000 acres land reservoir control commerce-paralyzing floods. prohibited diverting Great Lakes ensure navigability, phase 59 cases, overwhelm policy. thing force safety another either spend dollars substantially areas. relies apropos. 60 area taxation, hand, imposes E.g., 326. utilize snuff Metcalf Eddy Mitchell, 514, 172, 70 384, recognizing destroy. M'Culloch 316, 431, 579. destroy sovereignty. All affecting minutest degree, 122, controlled Commercial stripe 'with (interstate) merchandise' travel. 299—330, 381, 290. immense scope approval concept'—which proper 'businesses' being carried Yet billions programs hire act countless subtle ways. constituional concerned, compel build super-highways crisscrossing territory accommodate vehicles, inns eating places travelers, quadruple police forces commerce-crippling riots, etc.? Could virtually draw State's budget avoid 'disruptive effect(s) commercial intercourse.'? Heart Atlanta Motel 241, 257, 348, 357, 258. done, devour essentials attested guide set forth supra. Stone there, 'interfere unduly government.' 587, 316. 'impair government,' 594, 320 (dissenting Douglas, Black). Frankfurter observed, '(t)here are, partake uniqueness point intergovernmental relations.' 582, 314. Whether, given case, permissible depends facts. 'Constitutional trader 579, (opinion Frankfurter). seriously tampered with, potentially crippled. I reverse below. Stat. 1060. §§ 6(a), 7(a), 1062, 1063. 3(d), requirement, II), reads '(a) Every workweek following rates contains commerce' II) 'an person, which—(falls categories) 832, 203(s)(4) 831, 203(d) 216(b), 216(c), 826. 206(a), 207(a) 119, 459. conditions, maintenance themselves. prohibition, restraint itself, upheld real motive manufacturing. language quoted text answered challenge prohibition. Section 1060, 202, hereby finds existence, industries detrimental standard living health, efficiency, well-being workers (1) causes channels instrumentalities used spread perpetuate States; (2) burdens commerce; (3) constitutes unfair method *' appeared undertaken extensive legislative history before lays factual predicate extensions To true, quite irrelevant. findings purposes 1938. Subsequent based newly covered. manner reached conclusions. 2, declares existence 'leads infar, 194—195. 449, amended, 151 seq. 449. 120—121, 460—461. Ibid. 213(1) F.Supp., 832 Winter). Thomsen troubled application personnel, arrangements enterprises. 851. indicated attention problem special means computing overtime. provision seem inadequate, schools, matters outside cognizance. apply differing patterns worktime; intended patterns. decide changes beneficial harmful others. 833 ibid. Department Summary Release, Work Stoppages Involving Employees, 1966. engagement consist importation. Wirtz Hardin D.C., 253 aff'd, Cir., 359 F.2d 792 (FLSA); N.L.R.B. Baker Hotel, 311 528 (NLRA). suggests use here, today's whole take budgeting activities. reflects, think, misreading decision. "Enterprise' performed (either unified common control) persons business include independent contractor 203(r). uphold concept explicit premise expected intended. So defined, cognizant limitations Neither nor relatively trivial excuse bears relation de minimis character arising consequence. Nor exempt later partially removed exemption. date omit place. Judicial construed equity, commenced prosecuted Citizens Subjects Foreign State.' 203(d), 206(b) 207(b) Special rules applicable 207(j) 80-hour, 14-day period. No 851—852. 203(a), 215, 216(a).

Category: 6