Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0528_ZD.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 06:48:50
Document Index: 561773963

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 824', '§ 152', '§ 402', '§ 652', '§ 1002', '§ 1']

There are, of course, numerous examples over the history of this Court in which prior decisions have been reconsidered and overruled. There have been few cases, however, in which the principle of stare decisis and the rationale of recent [p558] decisions were ignored as abruptly as we now witness. [n1] The reasoning of the Court in National League of Cities, and the principle applied there, have been reiterated consistently over the past eight years. Since its decision in 1976, National League of Cities has been cited and quoted in opinions joined by every Member of the present Court. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264, 287-293 (1981); Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co., 455 U.S. 678, 684-686 (1982); FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 764-767 (1982). Less than three years ago, in Long Island R. Co., supra, a unanimous Court reaffirmed the principles of National League of Cities but found them inapplicable to the regulation of a railroad heavily engaged in interstate commerce. The Court stated:
In National League of Cities v. Usery, supra, for example, the Court made clear that the State's regulation of its relationship with its employees is an "undoubted attribute of state sovereignty." 426 U.S. at 845. Yet, [p559] by holding "unimpaired" California v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 553 (1957), which upheld a federal labor regulation as applied to state railroad employees, 426 U.S. at 854, n. 18, National League of Cities acknowledged that not all aspects of a State's sovereign authority are immune from federal control.
Although the doctrine is not rigidly applied to constitutional questions, "any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification." Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212 (1984). See also Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 691-692, n. 34 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). In the present cases, the five Justices who compose the majority today participated in National League of Cities and the cases reaffirming it. [n2] The stability of judicial decision, and with it respect for the authority of this Court, are not served by the precipitate overruling of multiple precedents that we witness in these cases. [n3]
Whatever effect the Court's decision may have in weakening the application of stare decisis, it is likely to be less [p560] important than what the Court has done to the Constitution itself. A unique feature of the United States is the federal system of government guaranteed by the Constitution and implicit in the very name of our country. Despite some genuflecting in the Court's opinion to the concept of federalism, today's decision effectively reduces the Tenth Amendment to meaningless rhetoric when Congress acts pursuant to the Commerce Clause. The Court holds that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) "contravened no affirmative limit on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause" to determine the wage rates and hours of employment of all state and local employees. Ante at 556. In rejecting the traditional view of our federal system, the Court states:
Ante at 546. In other words, the extent to which the States may exercise their authority, when Congress purports to act under the Commerce Clause, henceforth is to be determined from time to time by political decisions made by members of the Federal Government, decisions the Court says will not be subject to judicial review. I note that it does not seem to have occurred to the Court that it -- an unelected majority of five Justices -- today rejects almost 200 years of the understanding of the constitutional status of federalism. In doing so, there is only a single passing reference to the Tenth Amendment. Nor is so much as a dictum of any court cited in support of the view that the role of the States in the federal system may depend upon [p561] the grace of elected federal officials, rather than on the Constitution as interpreted by this Court.
Much of the Court's opinion is devoted to arguing that it is difficult to define a priori "traditional governmental functions." National League of Cities neither engaged in, nor required, such a task. [n4] The Court discusses and condemns [p562] as standards "traditional governmental functions," "purely historical" functions, "‘uniquely' governmental functions," and "‘necessary' governmental services." Ante at 539, 543, 545. But nowhere does it mention that National League of Cities adopted a familiar type of balancing test for determining whether Commerce Clause enactments transgress constitutional limitations imposed by the federal nature of our system of government. This omission is noteworthy, since the author of today's opinion joined National League of Cities and concurred separately to point out that the Court's opinion in that case
In reading National League of Cities to embrace a balancing approach, JUSTICE BLACKMUN quite correctly cited the part of the opinion that reaffirmed Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542 (1975). The Court's analysis reaffirming Fry explicitly weighed the seriousness of the problem addressed by the federal legislation at issue in that case against the effects of compliance on state sovereignty. 426 U.S. at 852-853. Our subsequent decisions also adopted this approach of weighing the respective interests of the States and Federal [p563] Government. [n5] In EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983), for example, the Court stated that
Id. at 236. See also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264 (1981). In overruling National League of Cities, the Court incorrectly characterizes the mode of analysis established therein and developed in subsequent cases. [n6] [p564]
Today's opinion does not explain how the States' role in the electoral process guarantees that particular exercises of the Commerce Clause power will not infringe on residual state sovereignty. [n7] Members of Congress are elected from the various States, but once in office, they are Members of the [p565] Federal Government. [n8] Although the States participate in the Electoral College, this is hardly a reason to view the President as a representative of the States' interest against federal encroachment. We noted recently "[t]he hydraulic pressure inherent within each of the separate Branches to exceed the outer limits of its power. . . ." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951 (1983). The Court offers no reason to think that this pressure will not operate when Congress seeks to invoke its powers under the Commerce Clause, notwithstanding the electoral role of the States. [n9] [p566]
The Court apparently thinks that the States' success at obtaining federal funds for various projects and exemptions from the obligations of some federal statutes is indicative of the "effectiveness of the federal political process in preserving the States' interests. . . ." Ante at 552. [n10] But such political success is not relevant to the question whether the political processes are the proper means of enforcing constitutional limitations. [n11] The fact that Congress generally [p567] does not transgress constitutional limits on its power to reach state activities does not make judicial review any less necessary to rectify the cases in which it does do so. [n12] The States' role in our system of government is a matter of constitutional law, not of legislative grace.
More troubling than the logical infirmities in the Court's reasoning is the result of its holding, i.e., that federal political officials, invoking the Commerce Clause, are the sole judges of the limits of their own power. This result is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our constitutional system. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton). At least since Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803), it has been the settled province of the federal judiciary "to say what the law is" with respect to the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. In rejecting the role of the judiciary in protecting the States from federal overreaching, the Court's opinion offers no explanation for ignoring the teaching of the most famous case in our history. [n13] [p568] III
Letter from Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee (Dec. 3, 1787), reprinted in Anti-Federalists versus Federalists [p569] 159 (J. Lewis ed.1967). Likewise, George Mason feared that,
Antifederalists raised these concerns in almost every state ratifying convention. [n14] See generally 1-4 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (J. Elliot 2d. ed. 1876). As a result, eight States voted for the Constitution only after proposing amendments to be adopted after ratification. [n15] All eight of these included among their recommendations some version of what later became the Tenth Amendment. Ibid. So strong was the concern that the proposed Constitution was seriously defective without a specific bill of rights, including a provision reserving powers to the States, that. in order to secure the votes for ratification, the Federalists eventually conceded that such provisions were necessary. See 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 505 and passim (1971). It was thus generally agreed that consideration of a bill of rights would be among the first business of the new Congress. See generally 1 Annals of Cong. 432-437 (1789) (remarks of James Madison). Accordingly, the 10 Amendments that we know as the Bill of Rights were proposed and adopted early in the first session of the First Congress. 2 Schwartz, The Bill of Rights, supra, at 983-1167. [p570]
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce. . . . The powers [p571] reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federalist No. 46, p. 316 (J. Cooke ed.1961). Like Hamilton, Madison saw the States' involvement in the everyday concerns of the people as the source of [p572] their citizens' loyalty. Ibid. See also Nagel, Federalism as a Fundamental Value: National League of Cities in Perspective, 1981 S.Ct.Rev. 81.
Id. at 76. Recently, in Community Communications Co. v. Boulder, 455 U.S. 40, 53 (1982), the Court recognized that the state action exemption from the antitrust laws was based on state sovereignty. Similarly, in Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co., 455 U.S. at 683, although finding the Railway Labor Act applicable to a state-owned railroad, the [p574] unanimous Court was careful to say that the States possess constitutionally preserved sovereign powers.
In contrast, the Court today propounds a view of federalism that pays only lipservice to the role of the States. Although it says that the States "unquestionably do ‘retai[n] a significant measure of sovereign authority,'" ante at 549 (quoting EEOC v. Wyoming, supra, at 269 (POWELL, J., dissenting)), it fails to recognize the broad, yet specific areas of sovereignty that the Framers intended the States to retain. Indeed, the Court barely acknowledges that the Tenth Amendment exists. [n16] That Amendment states explicitly that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States . . . are reserved to the States." The Court recasts this language to say that the States retain their sovereign powers
only to the extent that the Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and transferred those powers to the Federal [p575] Government.
Ante at 549. This rephrasing is not a distinction without a difference; rather, it reflects the Court's unprecedented view that Congress is free under the Commerce Clause to assume a State's traditional sovereign power, and to do so without judicial review of its action. Indeed, the Court's view of federalism appears to relegate the States to precisely the trivial role that opponents of the Constitution feared they would occupy. [n17]
426 U.S. at 851. Not only are these activities remote from any normal concept of interstate commerce, they are also activities that epitomize the concerns of local, democratic self-government. See n. 5, supra. In emphasizing the need to protect traditional governmental functions, we identified the kinds of activities engaged in by state and local governments that affect the everyday lives of citizens. These are services that people are in a position to understand and evaluate, and in a democracy, have the right to oversee. [n18] We recognized that "it is [p576] functions such as these which governments are created to provide . . ." and that the States and local governments are better able than the National Government to perform them. 426 U.S. at 851.
The Court maintains that the standard approved in National League of Cities "disserves principles of democratic self-governance." Ante at 547. In reaching this conclusion, the Court looks myopically only to persons elected to positions in the Federal Government. It disregards entirely the far more effective role of democratic self-government at the state and local levels. One must compare realistically the operation of the state and local governments with that of the Federal Government. Federal legislation is drafted primarily by the staffs of the congressional committees. In view of the hundreds of bills introduced at each session of Congress and the complexity of many of them, it is virtually impossible for even the most conscientious legislators to be truly familiar with many of the statutes enacted. Federal departments and agencies customarily are authorized to write regulations. Often these are more important than the text of the statutes. As is true of the original legislation, these are drafted largely by staff personnel. The administration and enforcement of federal laws and regulations necessarily are largely in the hands of staff and civil service employees. These employees may have little or no knowledge of the States and localities that will be affected by the statutes and regulations for which they are responsible. In any case, they hardly are as accessible and responsive [p577] as those who occupy analogous positions in state and local governments.
The question presented in these cases is whether the extension of the FLSA to the wages and hours of employees of a city-owned transit system unconstitutionally impinges on fundamental state sovereignty. The Court's sweeping holding does far more than simply answer this question in the negative. In overruling National League of Cities, today's opinion apparently authorizes federal control, under the auspices of the Commerce Clause, over the terms and conditions of employment of all state and local employees. Thus, for purposes of federal regulation, the Court rejects the distinction between public and private employers that had been drawn carefully in National League of Cities. The Court's action reflects a serious misunderstanding, if not an outright rejection, of the history of our country and the intention of the Framers of the Constitution. [n19] [p578]
I return now to the balancing test approved in National League of Cities and accepted in Hodel, Long Island R. Co., and FERC v. Mississippi. See n. 5, supra. The Court does not find in these cases that the "federal interest is demonstrably greater." 426 U.S. at 856 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring). No such finding could have been made, for the state interest is compelling. The financial impact on States and localities of displacing their control over wages, hours, overtime regulations, pensions, and labor relations with their employees could have serious, as well as unanticipated, effects on state and local planning, budgeting, and the levying of taxes. [n20] As we said in National League of Cities, federal control of the terms and conditions of employment of state employees also inevitably
Id. at 847. The Court emphasizes that municipal operation of an intracity mass transit system is relatively new in the life of our country. It nevertheless is a classic example of the type of service traditionally provided by local government. It is local by definition. It is indistinguishable in principle from the traditional services of providing and maintaining streets, public lighting, traffic control, water, and sewerage systems. [n21] Services of this kind are precisely those with which citizens are more "familiarly and minutely conversant." The Federalist No. 46, p. 316 (J. Cooke ed.1961). State and local officials, of course, must be intimately familiar with these services and sensitive to their quality as well as cost. Such [p579] officials also know that their constituents and the press respond to the adequacy, fair distribution, and cost of these services. It is this kind of state and local control and accountability that the Framers understood would insure the vitality and preservation of the federal system that the Constitution explicitly requires. See National League of Cities, 426 U.S. at 847-852.
1. National League of Cities, following some changes in the composition of the Court, had overruled Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968). Unlike National League of Cities, the rationale of Wirtz had not been repeatedly accepted by our subsequent decisions.
2. JUSTICE O'CONNOR, the only new Member of the Court since our decision in National League of Cities, has joined the Court in reaffirming its principles. See Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co., 455 U.S. 678 (1982), and FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 775 (1982) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting in part).
3. As one commentator noted, stare decisis represents "a natural evolution from the very nature of our institutions." Lile, Some Views on the Rule of Stare Decisis, 4 Va.L.Rev. 95, 97 (1916).
4. In National League of Cities, we referred to the sphere of state sovereignty as including "traditional governmental functions," a realm which is, of course, difficult to define with precision. But the luxury of precise definitions is one rarely enjoyed in interpreting and applying the general provisions of our Constitution. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Court's attempt to demonstrate the impossibility of definition is unhelpful. A number of the cases it cites simply do not involve the problem of defining governmental functions. E.g., Williams v. Eastside Mental Health Center, Inc., 669 F.2d 671 (CA11), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 976 (1982); Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 552 F.2d 25 (CA2), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 (1977). A number of others are not properly analyzed under the principles of National League of Cities, notwithstanding some of the language of the lower courts. E.g., United States v. Best, 573 F.2d 1095 (CA9 1978), and Hybud Equipment Corp. v. City of Akron, 654 F.2d 1187 (CA6 1981). Moreover, rather than carefully analyzing the case law, the Court simply lists various functions thought to be protected or unprotected by courts interpreting National League of Cities. Ante at 538-539. In the cited cases, however, the courts considered the issue of state immunity on the specific facts at issue; they did not make blanket pronouncements that particular things inherently qualified as traditional governmental functions or did not. Having thus considered the cases out of context, it was not difficult for the Court to conclude that there is no "organizing principle" among them. See ante at 539.
5. In undertaking such balancing, we have considered, on the one hand, the strength of the federal interest in the challenged legislation and the impact of exempting the States from its reach. Central to our inquiry into the federal interest is how closely the challenged action implicates the central concerns of the Commerce Clause, viz., the promotion of a national economy and free trade among the States. See EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 244 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring). See also for example, Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co., 455 U.S. 678, 688 (1982) ("Congress long ago concluded that federal regulation of railroad labor services is necessary to prevent disruptions in vital rail service essential to the national economy"); FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 757 (1982) ("[I]t is difficult to conceive of a more basic element of interstate commerce than electric energy . . . "). Similarly, we have considered whether exempting States from federal regulation would undermine the goals of the federal program. See Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542 (1975). See also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264, 282 (1981) (national surface mining standards necessary to insure competition among States does not undermine States' efforts to maintain adequate intrastate standards). On the other hand, we have also assessed the injury done to the States if forced to comply with federal Commerce Clause enactments. See National League of Cities, 426 U.S. at 846-851.
6. In addition, reliance on the Court's difficulties in the tax immunity field is misplaced. Although the Court has abandoned the "governmental/proprietary" distinction in this field, see New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946), it has not taken the drastic approach of relying solely on the structure of the Federal Government to protect the States' immunity from taxation. See Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444 (1978). Thus, faced with an equally difficult problem of defining constitutional boundaries of federal action directly affecting the States, we did not adopt the view many would think naive, that the Federal Government itself will protect whatever rights the States may have.
7. Late in its opinion, the Court suggests that, after all, there may be some "affirmative limits the constitutional structure might impose on federal action affecting the States under the Commerce Clause." Ante at 556. The Court asserts that "[i]n the factual setting of these cases, the internal safeguards of the political process have performed as intended." Ibid. The Court does not explain the basis for this judgment. Nor does it identify the circumstances in which the "political process" may fail, and "affirmative limits" are to be imposed. Presumably, such limits are to be determined by the Judicial Branch, even though it is "unelected." Today's opinion, however, has rejected the balancing standard, and suggests no other standard that would enable a court to determine when there has been a malfunction of the "political process." The Court's failure to specify the "affirmative limits" on federal power, or when and how these limits are to be determined, may well be explained by the transparent fact that any such attempt would be subject to precisely the same objections on which it relies to overrule National League of Cities.
8. One can hardly imagine this Court saying that, because Congress is composed of individuals, individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are amply protected by the political process. Yet the position adopted today is indistinguishable in principle. The Tenth Amendment also is an essential part of the Bill of Rights. See infra at 568-50.
9. At one time in our history, the view that the structure of the Federal Government sufficed to protect the States might have had a somewhat more practical, although not a more logical, basis. Professor Wechsler, whose seminal article in 1954 proposed the view adopted by the Court today, predicated his argument on assumptions that simply do not accord with current reality. Professor Wechsler wrote:
10. The Court believes that the significant financial assistance afforded the States and localities by the Federal Government is relevant to the constitutionality of extending Commerce Clause enactments to the States. See ante at 552-553, 555. This Court has never held, however, that the mere disbursement of funds by the Federal Government establishes a right to control activities that benefit from such funds. See Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1981). Regardless of the willingness of the Federal Government to provide federal aid, the constitutional question remains the same: whether the federal statute violates the sovereign powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.
11. Apparently in an effort to reassure the States, the Court identifies several major statutes that thus far have not been made applicable to state governments: the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824(f); the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(2); the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 402(e); the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 652(5); the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(32), 1003(b)(1); and the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; see Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). Ante at 553. The Court does not suggest that this restraint will continue after its decision here. Indeed, it is unlikely that special interest groups will fail to accept the Court's open invitation to urge Congress to extend these and other statutes to apply to the States and their local subdivisions.
12. This Court has never before abdicated responsibility for assessing the constitutionality of challenged action on the ground that affected parties theoretically are able to look out for their own interests through the electoral process. As the Court noted in National League of Cities, a much stronger argument as to inherent structural protections could have been made in either Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1"]424 U.S. 1 (1976), or 424 U.S. 1 (1976), or Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), than can be made here. In these cases, the President signed legislation that limited his authority with respect to certain appointments, and thus arguably "it was . . . no concern of this Court that the law violated the Constitution." 426 U.S. at 841-842, n. 12. The Court nevertheless held the laws unconstitutional because they infringed on Presidential authority, the President's consent notwithstanding. The Court does not address this point, nor does it cite any authority for its contrary view.
13. The Court states that the decision in National League of Cities "invites an unelected federal judiciary to make decisions about which state policies it favors and which ones its dislikes." Curiously, the Court then suggests that, under the application of the "traditional" governmental function analysis, "the States cannot serve as laboratories for social and economic experiment." Ante at 546, citing Justice Brandeis' famous observation in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Apparently the Court believes that, when "an unelected federal judiciary" makes decisions as to whether a particular function is one for the Federal or State Governments, the States no longer may engage in "social and economic experiment." Ante at 546. The Court does not explain how leaving the States virtually at the mercy of the Federal Government, without recourse to judicial review, will enhance their opportunities to experiment and serve as "laboratories."
14. Opponents of the Constitution were particularly dubious of the Federalists' claim that the States retained powers not delegated to the United States in the absence of an express provision so providing. For example, James Winthrop wrote that "[i]t is a mere fallacy . . . that what rights are not given are reserved." Letters of Agrippa, reprinted in 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 510, 511 (1971).
15. Indeed, the Virginia Legislature came very close to withholding ratification of the Constitution until the adoption of a Bill of Rights that included, among other things, the substance of the Tenth Amendment. See 2 Schwartz, The Bill of Rights, supra, at 762-766 and passim.
16. The Court's opinion mentions the Tenth Amendment only once, when it restates the question put to the parties for reargument in these cases. See ante at 536.
17. As the amici argue,
18. The Framers recognized that the most effective democracy occurs at local levels of government, where people with firsthand knowledge of local problems have more ready access to public officials responsible for dealing with them. E.g., The Federalist No. 17, p. 107 (J. Cooke ed.1961); The Federalist No. 46, p. 316 (J. Cooke ed.1961). This is as true today as it was when the Constitution was adopted.
19. The opinion of the Court in National League of Cities makes clear that the very essence of a federal system of government is to impose "definite limits upon the authority of Congress to regulate the activities of the States as States by means of the commerce power." 426 U.S. at 842. See also the Court's opinion in Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542, 547, n. 7 (1975).
20. As Justice Douglas observed in his dissent in Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. at 203, extension of the FLSA to the States could "disrupt the fiscal policy of the States and threaten their autonomy in the regulation of health and education."
21. In Long Island R. Co., the unanimous Court recognized that