Source: https://edulearn14.org/con-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:56:08+00:00

Document:
ct overruled Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 105 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989), wherein the Court found that the Interstate Commerce Clause, Art. I, 8, cl. 3, granted Congress the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity, stating that the power to regulate interstate commerce would be incomplete without the authority to render states liable in damages.
Generally, the principle of stare decisis, and the interests that it serves, viz., the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, reliance on judicial decisions, and the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process, counsel strongly against reconsideration of precedent.
However, when governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, the Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent.
Prinz case. Even where Congress has authority under Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, Necessary and Proper Clause does not grant Congress power directly to compel states to require or prohibit those acts.
U.S. Const. art. I, 8, (Congressional power including the commerce clause) which implication was rendered express by the U.S. Const. amend. X’s assertion that 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.
Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co.- gave authority to Congress to regulate rent under the war powers after the end of the war because the effects of the war effort extends beyond the mere formal declaration or proclamation ending the war.
A1,S8- Congress has the power to declare war, to maintain an army and navy. A1,S8,C19 To make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.
When war is officially terminated the war power does not necessarily end with the cessation of hostilities. The Act enables the management of the deficit in the housing caused by the mobilization of the war effort. Congress has the power to act to control the forces that a short supply of the needed article created.
if the war power ended at the cessation of fighting, the N ; P clause would be meaningless in the future.
these limitations are very specific and suggests that the framers did not intend to impose additional limitations.
The framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceeding for individuals who commit impeachment offenses: the impeachment trial and the criminal trial. Needed to insure independent judgment.
Curtiss-Wright. Internal sovereignty is different from external sovereignty.
if it involves foreign affairs there is a govt of unlimited powers vs. domestic affairs and a gov’t of limited powers.
foreign affairs are different than internal.
Even if the power wasn’t there in the text, the power is still there.
Curtis Wright suggested that it is a government of UNLIMITED powers in the foreign realm. And that the text doesn’t matter, it’s irrelevant.
McCullough case- Marshall immediately mentions this being the 2nd bank in the case, thus, he recognizes that other officials acted in a relevant context.
Chada case- legislative act, didn’t go to both houses, no bicameralism, hence it is unconstitutional.
Established the authority for the judiciary to review the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts even though the court is silent on this.
Supreme Court ruled against Marbury and held that it could not constitutionally hear the case as a matter of original jurisdiction. The court held that althought hte Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized such jurisdiction, this provision of the statute was unconstitutional because Congress cannot allow original jurisdiction beyond the situations enumerated in the Constitution.
What gives the power to the judiciary?
People created the constitution which gave them the power.
oath that binds, ” I swear or affirm…….” People can merely affirm. How is that allowed?
Wrote in the text (or affirm) to provide for non believers of religious past.
If everyone takes the same oath, why do the justices have the final power in interpreting? Why do the legislative and executory branch have to follow what the judiciary says?
What does he say is the greatest contribution to political theory? Written constitution.
The written constitution in it of itself leads to the conclusion that judicial review is valid.
they wanted it to be a permanent, set, fixed standard that everyone would be bound to.
Fundamental reason supported by listed above, it’s the nature of the judicial function. EX: If P says statute requires you to do x. if D says it’s against constitution. The court has to match statute up with constitution to see if they’re consistent. The court MUST do that.
coupled with the fact that Congress can’t enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and what the text says about that.
Fundamental point that there doesn’t have to be any lower courts at all and that Congress is in control of their jurisdiction.
McCardles was a newspaper editor who was arrested by federal officials for writing a series of newspaper articles that were highly critical of Reconstruction.
filed a writ of habeas corpus contending that the Military Reconstruction Act was unconstitutional because it provided for military trials for civilians.
In 1868 congress adopted a rider to a tax bill that repealed the part of the 1867 statute that authorized Supreme Court appellate review of writs of habeas corpus.
Court held it did not have jurisdiction to hear McCardle’s constitutional claims in light of the recently adopted statute denying it authority to hear appeals under the 1867 Act that was the basis for jurisdiction in McCardle’s petition.
It could not decide McCardle’s case because of Congress’s authority to create exceptions and regulations to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
Ct first looked at jurisdiction.
The appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is not derived from acts of Congress.
It is, strictly speaking, conferred by the Constitution.
But it is conferred with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.
The court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, but stated that the whole appellate power of the court, in cases of habeas corpus, was not denied.
There were two conflicting claims to certain land within the state of Va. Martin claimed title to the land based on inheritance from Lord Fairfax, a British citizen who owned the property.
However, Hunter claimed that Va had taken the land before the treaties came into effect and, hence, Martin did not have a valid claim to the land.
Va COA ruled in favor of Hunter and in essence in favor of the state’s authority to have taken and disposed of the land.
The United States Supreme Court issued a writ of error and reversed the Virginia decision. They held that the federal treaty was controlling and that it established Fairfax’s ownership and thus the validity of the inheritance pursuant to his will.
Va COA then said that US Supreme Ct had no authority to review state Court decision.
Story said that Constitution creates a Supreme Court and gives Congress discretion whether to create lower federal courts. But if Congress chose not to establish such tribunals, tehn the SC would be powerless to hear any cases, except for the few fitting within its original jurisdiction, unless it could review state court rulings.
it’s essential to uniformity in the interpretation of federal law.
very nature of the Constitution, the contemporaneous understanding of it, and many years of experience all established the SC’s authoirty to review state court decisions.
two brothers were convicted in Va state court for selling District of Columbia lottery tickets in violation of Va state law.
D sought review by the US SC because they claimed that the Constitution prevented them from being prosecuted for selling tix authorized by Congress.
Va said SC had no jurisdiction to review state court decisions and in particular review was not allowed in criminal cases and in cases where the gov’t was a party.
Justice Marshall held that SC could review state court decisions.
Criminal defendants could seek Supreme Court review when they claimed that their conviction violated the Constitution.
power that supreme court has the power of judicial review over the supreme courts of the states. States do not have the last word regarding the constitution.
adequate and independent state ground concept.
State has to make clear what their decision is based on….
If state decision rests on state law (and it’s adequate and independent) then the federal court has no jurisdiction.
Police officers found marijuana in the passenger compartment and trunk of the vehicle respondent was driving.
At issue was whether a protective search for weapons could extend to an area beyond the person in the absence of probable cause to arrest.
He was convicted of possession.
Michigan Supreme Ct reversed stating that the sole justification of the search, protection of the police officers and others nearby, cannot justify the search in this case. Marijuana was product of illegal search and was suppressed.
Long argues that the Supreme court is without jurisdiction because the decision rests on an adequate and independent state ground.
SC holds that there is no adequate and independent state grounds because Long did not prove it. Had no clear statement illustrating this, thus it is within the SC’s jurisdiction.
If there is an adequate and independent state ground for the decision, the supreme court has NO AUTHORITY to review the lower court’s opinion even if the loser is raising basic constitutional questions.
Supreme Ct says, If we don’t see a statement on the face of the state court’s opinion, we’re going to assume there is no adequate and independent state jurisdiction.
It also has to be independent. State law ground will not be considered constitutionally independent, unless the state court says that it is really and truly independent.
Michigan constitution gives more rights in this situation than the Constitution.
If sent back they would say that we didn’t use the Terry decision, we used the Michigan Constitution.
AND states can give more rights under the state constitutions than required to give under the Federal Constitution. State Constitutions can create rights.
If state constitution gives less rights, then they’re wrong. If they give more rights, they’ll be okay in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
The State Supreme Court says, This case doesn’t necessitate looking at a federal statute or federal constitution. They’re relying on state Constitution.
Advisory opinion notion- can’t do. Never had constitutional authority to issue advisory opinions.
Said Supreme Court would be doing this if they talked about what Terry meant.
State Supreme Court would say thanks, but we don’t care.
Court admitted to taking an inconsistent (ad hoc) approach to determining the outcome in these types of cases (state cases with federal issues). Recognize that it is not an appropriate way of dealing with these cases.
ad hoc decision making is unsatisfactory because it goes against consistency, certainty, and other High Constitutional Values.
What’s wrong with the Supreme Court deciding state law.
acknowledge a weakness, limitation on their knowledge, unfamiliarity.
Adopts the notion that whoever makes the thing should decide it.
there is an important need for uniformity in federal law, and that this need goes unsatisfied when we fail to review an opinion that rests primarily upon federal grounds and where the independence of an alleged state ground is not apparent from the four corners of the opinion.
What is your responsibility as a practitioner?
As an attorney you have to make sure that the state court judge has this statement in his ruling.
Pg 53- What’s the basis for the adequate and independent state rule.
desire to avoid advisory opinions.
Abstention doctrine- we have jurisdiction, but we won’t for a variety of different reasons.
If someone violates your constitutional rights, you have a federal cause of action.
There is a statute that gives the federal district court to hear those types of cases.
Sierra Club v. Morton- Sought to prevent the construction of a ski resort in Mineral King Valley in California. The issue was whether hte P was adversely affected or aggrieved so as to be entitled to seek judicial review under the Admin procedures Act of the interior dept decision.
Sierra Club, an org dedicated to protecting the environment, asserted a special interest in the conservation and the sound maintenance of the national park.
Supreme Court found this insufficient for standing because there was no allegation that any of the Sierra Club’s members ever had used the Mineral King Valley.
Remediability- the court has to be persuaded that if they issue a decree in your favor, your injury has to go away. .
– Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights. (Pg 71)- P challenged an IRS revision of a revenue ruling limiting te amount of free medical care that hospitals receiving tax exempt status were required to provide. Only emergency indigents were required to be treated.
P were individuals who claimed that they were denied needed medical care, and hence, injured.
ct denied standing to plaintiffs who were clearly injured becasue the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for causation and redressability. It was speculative whether the new revenue ruling was the cause of the denial of medical service.
United States v. Scrap case.(pg 71)- environmental group had standing to challenge a railroad rate struct of the Interstate CC claimed to discourage the shipment and use of recycled materials and promote the use of raw materials.
P alleged that its members were caused to pay more for finished products, etc.
ct concluded that standing was neither confined to those who suffer economic harm nor denied to many people who suffer the same injury, otherwise govt activites couldn’t be questioned.
bartender is raising the rights of men to have access to beer on the same age basis as women.
3rd party standing issue. Doesn’t affect him, affects them.
why doesn’t he have standing on his own as a bartendar? They don’t have any rights. If he would have raised his rights, he would have lost on the merits.
two constitutional amendments dealing with booze.
or to disobey the statutory command and suffer sanctions and perhaps loss of license.
In class- This matter fits in the framework, if were too rigid about this it will never be litigated and it’s a reality.
pg 75- taxpayer standing- if everybody is affected equally, then nobody has standing. Not a justiciable issue.
analyzing questions for exam. Use cases!!!
use language from ripeness and mootness cases.
no rule as such, case has to have gotten to the point where there is a concreteness to it.
You’re here too soon. It’s a timing question.
If it is necessary to decide a constitutional issue in order to determine the legal consequences of that conduct, no issues of ripeness or concreteness arise.
suits for injunctions and declaratory judgments, however, present different problems.
Characteristically, they relate to the future.
take the form ,suspiciously like that of an advisory opinion.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, – issue was the ripenes of a challenge to the constitutionality of the Hatch Act which prevented federal employees from takin g any active part in political managment or campaigns.
P sought a declaratory judgment that the law violated their first amendment rights and provided detailed affidavits on the activities they sought to engage in.
ct found that a hypothetical threat was not enough, they couldn’t issue advisory opinions upon broad claims, can’t speculate as to the types of political activities they Ps seek to engage in.
Adler v. Board of Ed- court found ripe a challenge to a state law designed to eliminate subversive persons from the public school system.
Cts choice to decide the case apparently reflected on a conclusion that there was a substantial hardship to denying review in that teachers had to either refrain from joining these organizations or risk loss of their jobs.
Poe v. Ullman- married women for whom pregnancy was medically unadvisable nd their doctors filed a lawsuit challenging a CT law preventing the distribution or use of contraceptives.
ct deemed case nonjusticiable because there had been only one prosecution under the law in more than 8 years. Constraceptives are commonly and notoriously sold in drug stores.
Younger v. Harris- suit brought in federal district court to enjoin district attorney from prosecuting plaintiffs under the Ca Criminal Syndicalism Act. 3 did not have a live controversy because they do not claim that they have ever been threatened with prosecution, that prosecution is likely, or even that a prosecution is remotely possibly.
only people being prosecuted under the challenge have standing.
lobby to change law, can’t go for court ruling.
ex: guy already graduated from law school case. About not issue advisory opinions.
It’s over and done and there is nothing left to deal with.
Exception- However if the court sees that it’s capable of repetition and is avoided by the bad guys (yet evading review), they’ll sometimes take the case. Look at abortion and law school admittance.
Mootness is an aspect of justiciability that we can raise any time even if the parties don’t.
have to have jurisdiction from the date the suit was filed until the end.
cases like this and abortion would be moot because the process is shorter and there would be no justiciability anymore. How do they get around this?
Simplest exception are those where the litigated issue will always be mooted by the passage of time in litigation, and the plaintiff will be subject to the challenged action in the future.
More complex are the cases where the plaintiff will not face the litigated issue in the future, but others similarly situated will.
Roe v. Wade- inability to obtain a legal abortion in the state.
Dunn v. Blumstein- voting statute that required you live in the state for a year and the county for three months prior to election.
if there is a clear cut commitment of the subject matter to another branch and no clear judicial standing can be shown, then its not for the courts to decide.
(1)case discussed the “political question doctrine” and notions of justiciability.
(6)potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various depts on one question.
Powell v. McCormack- H of R refused to seat Powell even though he had been elected by his constituents.
H of R subcommittee found that Powell deceived Congress by presenting false travel vouchers for reimbursements and had made illegal payment to his wife with government funds.
Powell argued that the refusal to seat him was unconstitutional because he was properly elected and met all of the requirements stated in the Constitution for service as a representative.
Supreme court held that the suit was not moot because his claim for back pay for the time in which he was not seated remained a live controversy.
here the court examine Art I Sec 3, Cl 6 to determine scope of authority given to Senate upon the Constitution.
Court holds that common sense of the word “sole” in the clause indicates taht the Senate ALONE shall have authority to determine the possibility of judicial review in the context of impeachment powers.
or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by variosu departments on one question.
start with government of limited powers.
also use Marbury v. Madison- certain types of questions we don’t deal with.
WE DON’T DO THAT TYPE OF WORK AT ALL!!!
for standing- you’re not the right person. For mootness- you came too late. For ripeness- you came too early.
How to approach the constitution in the first place, what’s its basic nature.
How many provisions of the text of the constitution address slavery?
Fugitive Slave Provision- duty on part of gov’t to return slave to slavery if they fled. Have to return fugitive slaves back to their owners.
Art I Sec 2 and 9- Taxes on slaves.
Article 5 says Article I Sec 9 is not amendable for twenty years.
Art I Sec 9- no tax on exportation.
How Does Marshall define “necessary”?
Let the end be legitimate (preamble), let it be within the scope of the constitution (government of limited/enumerated powers), and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and the spirit of the constitution.
Answer to the question : Does government have the authority to do this?
reference to the specific limitations is a reference to Con Law 2 primarily.
Case is not out of date!!!
USE handout (both from Kendall and from ME)- must go through all of the steps in the process!!!
only thing that is vague is 1 ( c )- categorical approach. Thomas would say it’s not substantial effects test but rather the categorical. Ex: mining, retail/wholesale was out of commerce, therefore, they could not regulate it.
Need to know all on part 1 on the handout. Recognize that Rehnquist reaffirmed New Deal cases and say their good law. However, they narrow their meaning.
He takes each of them and diminishes them to their facts and makes them inapplicable to these particular facts.
If all of the activity takes place in one place can Congress regulate it under the commerce clause?
YES if it has a substantial affect on commerce, it doesn’t matter if it all takes place in one state.
illustrates that the court’s understanding keeps moving too.
DO NOT USE INTER OR INTRA. IF YOU USE THEM, acknowlege that Kendall does not like them and at least put them in quotation marks. You can say that the courts used those words.
a. National League of Cities- federal statute (minimum wage required for certain state employees); looked at the 10th Amendment, textural reminder that states are to be preserved as fully functioning gov’t units, thus national gov’t doesn’t have authority to push around the states insofar that it impairs the state inherently governmental functions.
nothing in statute was violative of any constitutional provision.
if the federal statute (ex: minimum wage statute- hereby must pay x amount) if it’s of general applicability including the states, they’re not treated any differently. Right answer is the 10th Amendment and the Garcia case.
If the statute regulates everybody (public and private together/ states are just another entity) Garcia is law.
Statute that covers private and public IBM and Illinois. Use Garcia case.
You can regulate without problem.
Garcia treats the states like the private people that it deals with. Must treat them the same.
Rule in Garcia, there is no rule. The only protections the states have is through the political electoral process.
if congress passes a statute under the commerce clause and it would be valid under IBM, than it would be valid to the states as well. Can apply same law to the state.
Virtually saying don’t come into my building. There is no remedy here.
if they treat the state’s separately, then the correct line of cases is New York and other cases. Commandeering concept.
only affects Illinois (or another state) use New York v. United States.
You can’t coerce. Feds cannot coerce the states directly if the only people they are regulating are the states.
Test is, Congress cannot directly coerce the states if they’re the only ones being regulated.
they can regulate them and effect their behavior by presenting options.
at least one of the options has to be non coercive, they have to be constitutional as well.
middle of 238, our job is to have the last word on the meaning of the constitution and to make sure self interest doesn’t lead to the other two branches selling out the system.
237, part 4B, you can’t consent to unconstitutional grant of authority. You can’t waive it or be estopped from utilizing it.
Which is the fact situation like?
It’s like NY v. United States. Regulating the states.
why did they take the case anyway. What did it add?
Scalia on 244, acknowledges taht historically state judges have always been commandeered. (Testa case on 237). State courts can be commandeered and has been that way.
seldom commandeered the rest of the branches and it says that it can’t be done. Cannot commandeer the executive or legislative branches of state government.
pg 245 he uses the phrase dual sovereignty. Tons of textual provisions that deal with that.
Sate sovereignty is implicit in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of NOT ALL gov’t powers, but only those enumerated in Article I, Sec 8, which implication was rendered by the 10th Amendment.
Justice Scalia is using rhetoric to move the court back to the state right’s view. Trying to go back to the 10th amendment.
dual sovereignty is to introduce a mental picture that you wouldn’t draw from other sources. Draws the picture from the losers in Garcia. That’s their vision.
on 247, Justice Thomas, said no one has had it right since 1930. Right answer is 1870-1930.
c. Reno v. Conden- Supreme Court rejected a 10th Amendment challenge and upheld the federal law.
Case involved a challenge to the Driver’s Protection Act, a federal law that prohibited states from disclosing personal information gained by dmvs.
COA held statute as unconstitutional because it said it commandeered the states to not disclose the information.
Rehnquist explained that it was a prohibition of conduct and not a affirmative mandate as in New York and Prinz.
Law was constitutional as an exercise of Congress’s commerce clause power because the Congress foudn that many states sell this personal information to individuals and businesses and generate significant revenue for the states.
a private person cannot enforce the federal statute against a state as a state.
Can’t sue in the state court or the federal court.
Sovereign immunity protects the state from such a claim.
1. Enforcement of a valid federal statute against a state in federal court by a private person.
Although the 11th Amendment terminology only prohibits suits against a state by citizens of other states and foreign countries, the Supreme Court, held that it would be anomalous to allow statees to be sued by their own citizens.
court held that Congress may authorize suits against states so long as the law does so expressly in its text.
ct held that Act authoried suits and that Congress, when legislating pursuant to the commerce clause, had the authority to create such state gov’t liability.
only four justices (Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy) took the position that hte 11th Amendment reflects a “broad constitutional principle of sovereign immunity” that protects states from virtually all suits in federal court.
The Act required states to negotiate with Indian Tribes to form compacts to allow gambling on Native American land. Act specifically authorized suits against states in federal court as an enforcement mechanism.
Supreme Court held the Act unconstitutional and said that Congress may authorize only when action pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and not pursuant to any other federal powers, such as the Indian commerce Clause.
Does the federal court have a right to hear a case against state and the governor to enforce this federal right?
NO, unless the state consented.
Does the case add anything?
yes, the federal government claims that it has power to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the commerce clause.
Can Congress under the commerce clause, abrogate sovereign immunity?
Congress can do anything they want under the commerce clause as long as it’s within the power of the commerce clause.
other case is Pennsylvania v. Union Gas- they overrule it.
how do they reason that the national gov’t has no authority under the commerce clause to abrogate sovereign immunity, but it does under the 14th Amendment.
Holding is that you can’t do it (abrogate sovereign immunity) under the 11th Amendment and the 14th Amendment you can.
Union Gas is bad law.
rationale is sovereign immunity is an integral part of the original understanding of the constitution, therefore, the right was to interpret Article I (Commerce Clause) is to realize that they’re limited by state sovereignty.
ex parte Young, suit against a state official.
the majority view it as a narrow exception, if not a fiction. Don’t hold it in high regard. However, the dissent holds it in high regard. Has to be some way to enforce.
What’s the difference between Ex Parte Young and this Case?
remedial scheme was proposed by Congress, when that happens, the judiciary will not supplement that scheme with one created by them.
Kendall wouldn’t exactly read that way- Dissent and Kendall says, The norm should be they always have Ex Parte Young and this is a supplement.
narrows Ex Parte Young and seems to say that Congress can give you any remedy they want even if it’s a sliver of a thing and get away with Ex Parte Young.
Statute is constitutional, but the court has no jurisdiction to enforce it at the behest of a private person.
remedy available: lawsuit of the US government against the state or the governor.
states only have sovereign immunity against private lawsuits.
In a sense, we have a void of enforceability of certain rights.
if the state doesn’t consent, the claims can’t be heard in the state court either.
Initially filed in federal court, but was dismissed based on the 11th Amendment. Then sued in maine state court.
Kennedy acknowledged taht consitution and its framers were silent about the ability to sue state governments in state courts. However, it was unthinkable that the states would have ratified the constitution had they thought it made them subject to suit without their consent.
Bank was a co that devised a system for students to use to save money for their college education.
FL Prepaid copied this system and College Savings sued for patent infringement and for deceptive business practices in violation of the Lanham Act.
ct dealt with the deceptive practices and rejected the argumetn that the sate had waived it’s sovereign immunity by engaging in impermissible conduct.
Fitzpatrick v. Blitzer- (involved a suit brought directly against a state government pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination.
Congress applied Title VII to the states purusant to its powers under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
ct reasoned taht the 14th Amendment specifically was intended to limit state sovereignty, and therefore congressional legislation under the 14th Amendment can authorize suits directly against the states in federal court.
Congress declared that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional as exceeding the scope of Congress’s power under Section 5, Amendment 14.
ct ruled that pursuant to Section 5, Congress only may provide remedies for rights recognized by the courts and that Congress may not create new rights to expand the scope of rights.
Any law must be narrowly tailored to solving constitutional violations; it must be “proportionate” and “congruents” to preventing and remedying constitutional violations.
Florida Pre-Paid- (ct held that a federal law authorizing suits against states for patent infringement exceeded the scope of Congress’s Section 5 authority.
law was not “proportionate” or “congruent” because of the absence of proof of a pattern of such violations by state governments.
the law prohibits much more than the Constitution, since age discrimination receives only rational basis review, and that the legislative record did not documetn a pattern of unconstiutional age discrimination by state governments.
involved a constitutional challenge to the civil damages provision of the VAMA which authorized victims of gender based violence to sue under federal law.
exceeded commerce power because Congress cannot regulate noneconomic activity based on a cumulative impact on interstate commerce.
not constitutional under Sec 5, Am 14 because Congress may regulate only state and local governments, not privte conduct.
Rehnquist relied on it’s terms that it only prohibits state actions.
ct found that the law prohibits much that would not violate the Constitution, because disability discrim also only receives rational basis review under equal protection.
legislative record did not sufficiently documetn unconstitutional discrimination by state govts against the disabled in employment to make the law “proportionate” and “congruent” to the problem.
How Does the System Ensure State Compliance with Federal Standards if Suits by Private Persons Against the State are not Allowed (or limited)?
Citizen can’t sue a state in federal court on federal issue.
If a citizen sues a state official, can sue if you are asking for injunctive relief.
Can’t sue state official, if you are seeking monetary relief.
If the injunction is monetary in nature (asking to provide adequate facilities in the future) can still sue in federal court. Costs a ton of money and comes out of your pocket. Huge state interest.
really about retrospective relief (unconstitutional) and prospective relief (constitutional). Under Edelman v. Jordan on pg 255.
What about when a citizen sues a state official for violating state law? THIS is what Pennhurst is about…….
Young and Edelman disappear here.
federal court can not hear any claims whether damages or injunction.
can sue in state court on a state issue.
railroads thought regulations were unconstitutional and sought to enjoin their enforcement.
11th Amendment does not preclude suits against state officers for injunctive relief, even when the remedy will enjoin the implementation of an official state policy.
11th does not bar suits against state officers to enjoin violations of the federal law.
In Ex Parte Young- court said that the sovereign immunity that would otherwise be there if they were acting pursuant to the state’s rules, would be gone if they were NOT acting pursuant to their employment.
Majority has a very negative attitude to this, but it is central to applying to the bad guys of the state.
Young doctrine has been accepted as necessary to permit the federal courts to vindicate federal rights.
P sued Edelman, the Illinois commissioner of the Dept of Public Welfare, objecting to the state’s failure to comply with federal standards for processing welfare applications.
p sought injunctive relief for the future and injunction requiring the state to give back payments of all the funds that were improperly withheld.
Ct held that the 11th Amendment does not bar the order compelling state compliance in the future. Ct said that Ex Parte Young establishes that federal courts may give injunctive relief against state officers, even when compliance will cost the state money.
ct, however, held that 11th bars the previously owed sums because the money obviously would be paid from the state treasury and not from the officer’s own pocket. 11th prohibits all awards of retroactive damages to be paid from state treasury.
simple example is the drinking age to be changed from 18 to 21.
held there was no power because of the two amendments to the constitution giving states separate and distinct power.
For exam, ALWAYS START WITH TEXT.
These are separate, distinct powers.
It’s not a correct interpretation to say because they are not covered under the commerce clause that you can’t do it under taxing power.
ct says taxing power is about raising revenue, it’s not about regulation, prohibition.
if they see it as revenue raising, even if it has some regulatory intent, it’s constitutional.
if you see enough revenue, it’s constitutional.
cases distinguish against revenue raising and penal. Every revenue generator regulates, it matters how much.
Congress was limited to taxing and spending to carry out the other powers specifically granted in Article I of the Constitution.
4. Does it effectuate an end which is not legitimate not within the scope of the Constitution?
question of multi state corporate business practices.
Derive revenue from a few different states. If each of those state’s have a revenue tax, what percentage can they tax?
There are formula, guidelines that direct how income is allocated so that the phenomenon of excessive taxes (over 100%) can’t happen.
exemption for certain Alaska oil. All oil pays 2% tax except x oil from Alaska. Constitution says that they all have to pay same amount.
Ct says if gov’t has rational justification for lack of uniformity, it’s okay.
pg 200- 14 provisions that address the warmaking powers. Must be able to list four or five of them.
embargo about battle between bolivia and columbia.
Foreign is different than domestic.
states have no place at all.
Sovereignty is without limits externally.
what’s foreign affairs there is a govt of unlimited powers.
Professor says he thinks this is an example of a structural argument case.
POINT ONE: foreign affairs are different than internal.
POINT TWO: TEST Q. External sovereignty. Text is not needed. This is second example.
1st one was justice marshall and McCullough v. Maryland. Even if the power wasn’t there in the text, the power is still there.
Korean war is on. Steel industry is at an impasse. The workers go out on strike. Truman issues an executive order (a proper form) in essence taking over the steel industry and directing the workers to go back to work making things (guns and tanks) so that the US can fight war in Korea.
does congress have the power to do that?
if sovereignty means “protect your war” according to Curtis the government would have authority to do this. Text doesn’t matter. Power is there.
what’s the power of the national government under commerce? It’s plenary. Unless there’s an explicit textural provision, they can do it.
When war is officially terminated the war power does not necessarily end with the cessation of hostilities. The Act enables the management of the deficit in the housing caused by the mobilization of the war effort. Congress has the power to act to control the forces that a short supply of the needed article created. Otherwise the N ; P clause would be meaningless.
the issue here is WHERE is the line?
what if congress passes a law that is inconsistent with the treaty? Is that allowed?
yes, whatever is most recent is the law of the land.
a treaty can be amended, superceded, etc by a subsequent federal law.
Treaties need approval by only the 2/3 of the SENATE. Don’t need the HOUSE.
federalism is the main case here.
treaties became the agreement between the president of the nation and the senator of the states.
Senators are no longer agents of the states (they are directly elected) but at the time, they were.
Treaty v. Federal law- Which one prevails?
the last in time is the law.
statute says do “x” and subsequent treaty says don’t’ do “x”. The treaty is the law.
run the House and Senate back into the equation. Can pass a law to end the provision of treaty that is in question.
congress was found not to be able to do this endangered species thing.
Couldn’t do it under CC and couldn’t do it under taxing and spending.
They then did it under the treaty power with Canada.
Found they could do it because treaty power is broader than taxing and spending and commerce clause.
Justice Holmes rejected any 10th Am. Limit on th treaty power. Article II expressly authorizes treaties and that Article 6 make treaties the supreme law of the land.
treaty power is broader than the authority Congress possess to enact statutes. (Act of Congress are only supreme law of land when they are made in pursuance to the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the US.
upheld the Litvinov Agreement, which the US recognized the Soviet Union in exchange for the Soviet Union assigning to the US its interests in a Russian Insurance company in NY.
Court upheld the agreement and explained taht because it was not a treaty, Senate approval was not required.
It was an executive agreement and prevails over state law and policy.
in all cases of international compacts and agreements….complete power over international affairs is in the national government and is not and cannot be subject to any curtailment or interference on the part of the several states.
Douglas- treaty is a “law of the land” under the supremacy clause of Article 6. Such international compacts and agreements as the Litinov Assignment have similar dignity.
If it’s out of bounds, it’s invalid.
under the treaty it says that she gets a trial under the military tribunal, against Article III and the fifth amendment guaranteeing indictment and trial by jury.
ct says despite the flavor of the earlier case, the constitution that deals with individual rights, trumps the treaty.
you can’t bargain away through a treaty people’s bill or rights rights.
Treaty powers are separate distinct powers.
They involve foreign affairs and their power is more broad.
Thought is, you can’t do it under taxing, commerce, spending.
Ex: make new drug a crime.
Seems to be inherently a police power thing.
Normally wouldn’t be a commerce clause thing.
However, if the drug was a main stream type of thing, then there would be a commerce clause issue.
3. Whether what state is doing is discriminatory or non discriminatory.
If discriminatory, Presumptively unconstitutional unless there is a legitimate state or governmental interest AND no reasonably available/non discriminatory alternative.
Non discriminatory, presumptively constitutional unless burdens outweigh benefits of state.
4. other category: Market participant. A state may favor its own citizens in dealing with government owned business and in receiving benefits from government programs.
if the state is literally a participant in the market, such as with a state owned business, and not a regulator, the dormant commerce clause does not apply.
however, even if the laws are permissible under the DCC they may not be under other constitutional provisions such as the p and I clasue or equal protection.
Write this: Justice Thomas and Scalia say that it doesn’t make any sense unless the state statutes are discriminatory because SC has no way of balancing benefits against burdens of the state. Who is the SC to say to evaluate the worth to the state.
1. Why free trade common market makes sense. Sound, economic makes good sense.
2. Political point. Taxation without representation is tyranny.- there’s no consent. No representation which is absolutely required. Normal value of consent and representation.
3. National solidarity- unifies us and forms a nation. Theory is, if I have to do business with you and there is choices, I’m going to be nicer. Customer is always right theory. If there is a free market it unifies us. If Texas can hold back it’s cows/oil, you don’t have a country.
1. We began with quarantines are okay (diseased cows). Can keep out of state.
We are dealing with things that are not directly of that nature.
1. It is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus to the taxing state (need more support needed than judicial jurisdiction). More than for personal jurisdiction.
Out of state tuition fees- we know that it’s constitutional. You can distinguish between in state and out of state students with charges.
court seems to see taxes as fundamentally different than a set aside money for expenditures.
start with gibbons v. ogden and regulate, commerce, among the several states.
it’s a dormant commerce clause (don’t need supremacy,etc) You can jump right into the Cooley case, etc.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.