Constitutional Law: Federalism Case Chart

# Constitutional Law: Federalism ## Part 1: Interpretation and Judicial Review ### Judicial Review - Provides the judiciary with the power to interpret the Constitution and invalidate actions of other branches of government. #### Marbury vs Madison (1803) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rul...

# Constitutional Law: Federalism ## Part 1: Interpretation and Judicial Review ### Judicial Review - Provides the judiciary with the power to interpret the Constitution and invalidate actions of other branches of government. #### Marbury vs Madison (1803) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1803 | Marbury vs Madison | John Adams appointed Marbury to be a federal judge before he left office. This was an attempt to keep Federalist power through judgeships. The commission however did not get sent. Marbury wants the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to order Madison to deliver his commission. | 1. Did Marbury have a right to it? 2. Do laws offer a remedy? 3. Is the writ of mandamus the correct remedy? | 1. **Const Supremacy**: The Constitution wins over a statute because the Constitution is intended to be the supreme law of the land. 2. **Judicial Review**: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. The judicial branch is authorized to review and apply the law and offer judgment without will. When a case is properly before the court, the judiciary has the authority to interpret the Constitution as supreme and void other law. | Stat conflicted with the Constitution. The court found that the act of legislature which is repugnant to the Constitution is void and unenforceable. | Marshall crafted his argument to create a conflict and get the idea of judicial review proposed. He thought if he ordered the writ it would just be ignored, so he wanted to make sure that the judiciary branch’s power was not diminished historically, the executive has ignored the judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution. | ## Part 2: Federalism ### A. Express and Implied Federal Powers - Necessary and Proper Clause - The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution" #### McCulloch Vs Maryland | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1819 | McCulloch vs Maryland | Congress passed a bill to incorporate the Second Bank of the United States, which had branches in many states. Maryland passed a law which imposed a tax on all banks not chartered in Maryland, which effectively would run the bank out of business. | 1. *Is federal law incorporating a bank valid?* 2. *Can a state tax a bank?* | 1. **A Government of the People:** The federal government is a government of the people, not of the states. Powers are exercised directly on the people and for their benefit. The Constitution was submitted to the people and had the chance to be accepted or denied by them. State-assembled conventions were for convenience sake. 2. **Necessary and Proper Clause:** The means which are helpful, conducive, convenient to effectuating one of Congress' enumerated powers are constitutional. The Necessary and Proper Clause is not limiting and is not an absolute requirement. It would be contrary to the purpose of the Constitution to give Congress power and then limit the means of executing those powers. The power is helpful, convenient, and beneficial to the government. 3. **Broadly Read Power:** The Necessary and Proper Clause is broader than specific enumerated powers like the Commerce Clause, it applies to all enumerated powers, but is often used with the commerce clause. | Congress had authority through the Necessary and Proper Clause to incorporate the bank. States may not tax the bank. The sole purpose of the tax was to run the bank out of business, which is not consistent with the federal supremacy. Allowing the state to tax the federal government would affect individuals outside the state and there's also some security problems that Congress had broadly granted to Congress. | The Practice Argument is not enough alone, but the executive and legislative fought and resolved this. "This is a Constitution we are expounding. Not to be read like a legal code, it can just set forth broad objectives or goals, leaving it to Congress to establish the means of achieving those goals. "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution are constitutional. | #### US vs Comstock | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 2010 | US vs Comstock | Federal law provides for civil commitment of certain prisoners who had some connection to federal enumerated powers (distributing child porn through the mail, child abuse on federal lands) | *Is federal law ordering civil commitment of prisoners who violated federal law valid?* | **Necessary and Proper Clause:** Congress has the authority to enact statutes which are convenient, useful, or conducive to its beneficial exercise of its enumerated powers. Congress can enact statutes so long as it constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutional enumerated power. The chain of inferences between the enumerated power and what Congress is trying to do can be attended. | Congress had the authority through the Necessary and Proper Clause to order civil commitment based on the quirks included in the statute, which provide a link to enumerated powers. | *Elaboration of McCulloch:* Statute is just a “modest addition”, “reasonable extension”, “not too attenuated"… but look to all the steps to get from the enumerated power to here. (Time of expansion) | #### NFIB vs Sebelius | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 2012 | NFIB vs Sebelius | When analyzing Cong power through the Necessary and Proper Clause, we cannot forget about PROPER. A statute is not proper if it violates the Constitution text or structure. | *Does Congress have authority to compel people to buy health insurance?* | The **Necessary and Proper Clause** has limitations. A statute is not proper if it violates the Constitution text or structure. Congress cannot violate the anti-commandeering principle, even when it is helpful, conducive to effectuating an enumerated power. Congress does not have the power to compel individuals to be active in a market. The power to create is separate from the power to regulate in the Constitution. Cases have regulated activity, not inactivity. Congress should limit its authority. This would be virtually limitless. Congress cannot create the predicate to use the Necessary and Proper Clause. Must have a link to an enumerated power and this link can't be too attenuated. | Congress did not have the authority to compel action and no power through the Necessary and Proper Clause, because there was no link to an enumerated power. | Scalia says the provision was not necessary and proper, because there are other ways to accomplish the goal, but the Necessary and Proper Clause does not mean “absolutely necessary.” Says Congress cannot create a predicate, but they really always do this (Comstock). | ### B. The Commerce Power #### 1. Early View - Gibbons Vs Ogden (1824) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1824 | Gibbons vs Ogden | State law granted Ogden exclusive rights to operate boats from New York to New Jersey. Federal statute authorized Gibbons to run steamships here. Ogden sues, claiming the federal statute was invalid. | *Is the federal law authorizing Gibbons to run steamboats valid? [The statute is in direct conflict with the state law]* | **Commerce is not limited to "interchange of commodities." The Commerce Power extends to commerce "among the several states" which "cannot stop at the external boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior," even though it cannot extend to the exclusively internal commerce of a state. Congress has the authority through the Commerce Clause to enact the law. Therefore, the law is valid, and because federal law is supreme under the Supremacy Clause, the federal law trumps state law. | Marshall throws a bone to each side, but the bigger bone goes to Congress. He does say there must be some limit on enumerated powers or they wouldn't be enumerated. | #### 2. Uncertainty and Restrictive View - US vs E.C. Knight | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1895 | US vs E.C. Knight | Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890, which outlawed contracts, combinations which restricted trade among several states. E.C. Knight controlled 98% of the sugar refining business. | *Did Congress have authority to pass the Anti-Trust Act? Did Congress have authority to regulate manufacturing (i.e., sugar refining)?* | **That which does not belong to commerce is within the J of the police power of the state. Manufacturing is not commerce, because manufacturing is not commerce because manufacturing only affects commerce indirectly. Commerce succeeds to manufacturing, but it is not a part of it. If national power extended to control manufacturing, agriculture, mining and other productive industries whose result may affect commerce, little would be left for state control.** | Congress had the authority to pass the Sherman Anti-Trust Act but did not have authority to regulate manufacturing because it was not commerce. | | #### Champion vs Ames (1903) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1903 | Champion vs Ames | Federal law made it illegal to transport lottery tickets across state lines. | *Did Congress have authority to pass a federal law making it illegal to carry lottery tickets across state lines? * | **Congress does not have the power to interfere with traffic or commerce carried on exclusively within the limits of any state, but may only interfere with traffic or commerce carried on AMONG THE STATES.** | Congress had the authority to prohibit carrying of lottery tickets because it was regulating the carriage from state to state. | The authority given to Congress was not to prohibit, but only to regulate. Real purpose was to suppress lotto. Power to suppress lotto = state power | #### Shreveport Rate Case (1914) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1914 | Shreveport Rate Case | ICC established maximum rates for RR co.s and ordered TX RR co.s (who were all charging higher rates to LA) to comply. Cos allege ICC did not have auth to enact law | *Did Congress have the authority to enact a law regulating rates of intra-state RR shipping?* | **Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic...** | Congress had the authority to enact the law through the ICC. | Congress granted authority to regulate instumentalities, even if "ship" only comes from intrastate activities. | #### Hammer vs Dagenhart (1918) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1918 | Hammer vs Dagenhart | Federal law prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods produced by children | *Did Congress have the authority to enact a law prohibiting shipment of child-labor goods?* | **Production is not commerce. Production is a matter for local regulation, and within a state's power under the 10th Amendment.** | Congress did not have authority to regulate production. | The goods produced by the child labor were "themselves harmless" and production was over by the time the goods were shipped. | #### Carter vs Carter Coal Co (1936) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1936 | Carter vs Carter Coal Co | Federal law established a commission to set standards, wages, hours, and labor relations for coal mining companies. The law was not mandatory but would give firms receiving the refund. | *Did Congress have authority to enact a law regulating standards, wages, and labor of coal companies?* | **Congress cannot regulate things that are a part of the local process of production. Regulations on employing workers, setting wages, and working hours have an indirect effect on interstate commerce, because they are a part of the local process of production. Congress cannot regulate purely internal commerce. ** | Congress did not have authority to regulate employment, wages, and work hours because it was part of the local process of production. | The Court was trying to keep the market independent and encourage free competition. At this time, it was active In striking down laws that regulate private commercial behavior. | #### NLRB vs Jones & Laughlin Steel Co (1937) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1937 | NLRB vs Jones & Laughlin Steel Co | Federal law established labor-management disputes could be regulated by the federal government. A federal agency charged Jones & Laughlin steel company (JLSC) for discrimination, and JLSC argued the law was unconstitutional. | *Did Congress have authority to enact a law regulating labor-management disputes?* | **Congress has authority to regulate activities having such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce. ** The Court found a causal connection. These specific industrial activities (labor shortages in the coal industry) had the potential to substantially effect interstate commerce. | Congress did have authority to regulate specific labor relations for this specific industry, because of the potential affect on interstate commerce. | The Court abandoned the claim that labor relations only indirectly effect interstate commerce. This is opposite of Carter. | #### US vs Darby (1941) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1941 | US vs Darby | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) enacted to regulate wages, hours, and child labor for corporations engaged in interstate commerce. Georgia lumber company brought suit that regulation of production (wages and hours) was unconstitutional. | *Did Congress have authority to enact a law regulating labor standards against in relation to a company's production?* | **Congress has authority to regulate the production of goods for commerce. Wages and hours have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. The purpose of the act was to prevent states from using substandard labor practices to their economic advantage through interstate commerce.** | Congress held the authority to regulate companies producing goods for commerce in regards to their labor standards. | *Arg in Dagenhart (co could argue they were engaged in manufacturing, but did not intend for interstate commerce) is facile. Even if a company can distinguish, it still substantially affects interstate commerce. * *Limits NLRB, not all labor, but labor where there is production* | #### Wickard vs Filburn (1942) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1942 | Wickard vs Filburn | Federal law (Ag Adjustment Act) allowed the Secretary of Agriculture to apportion allotments production quotas for wheat. A farmer harvests twice as much wheat as he should for his own use, and was penalized. | *Did Congress have authority to regulate the production of wheat grown by a farmer for his own personal use?* | **The Court looked to see if Congress had a rational basis for concluding this activity would affect interstate commerce, if done in the aggregate. Congress has authority to regulate activities which, in the aggregate, could substantially affect interstate commerce. Even if local and trivial, Congress can still reach these activities, regardless of whether the affect on interstate commerce is direct or indirect.** | Congress had the authority to regulate the farmers’ production of wheat, even if purely for home consumption, because there was a rational basis for concluding this would affect interstate commerce in the aggregate. | | #### Heart of Atlanta Motel vs US, Katzenbach vs McClung (1964) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1964 | Heart of Atlanta Motel vs US | Provision of the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination in the use of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations, including hotels and inns. A motel in Atlanta, near interstate highways, with many out-of-state guests, in-state billboards, and advertising in national magazines, refused to serve African American guests. | *Did Congress have the authority to regulate channels of interstate commerce?* | ** Congress has authority to regulate. Racial discrimination places burdens on interstate commerce by making it difficult for African American individuals to find transient accommodations and may discourage interstate commerce, which has a substantial and harmful effect on interstate commerce. | Congress had authority to regulate channels of interstate commerce that would affect interstate commerce. | Congress can regulate the operation of a motel, which is purely local, because of the harm on interstate commerce that could occur without regulation. | | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1964 | Katzenbach vs McClung | Restaurant owner refused to serve African Americans, violating the Civil Rights Act. The Act prevented restaurants from serving interstate travelers, or receiving a substantial amount of their food from interstate commerce from discriminating. | *Did Congress have authority to regulate the operation of a small restaurant?* | **Congress has authority to regulate those activities which, taken in the aggregate, it has a rational basis for concluding could substantially affect interstate commerce. ** | Congress had authority to regulate the operation of a restaurant even if local. | Racial discrimination in restaurants had a direct and adverse effect on the free flow of interstate commerce. | #### US vs Lopez (1995) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1995 | US vs Lopez | Federal law made it a federal offense to have a gun on school grounds. The government gave a rational basis for concluding that this activity in the aggregate would affect interstate commerce - cost of crimes, national productivity, decline in willingness to travel. The statute had no language connected it to interstate commerce. | *Did Congress have authority to regulate the possession of a gun?* | **Through the Commerce Clause, Congress has three powers: 1. May regulate the use channels of interstate commerce. 2. May regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even if local. 3. May regulate economic activities having a substantial effect on interstate commerce (or would in the aggregate). Congress can regulate non-economic activities if they are a part of a larger regulatory scheme. State’s powers include family law, basic criminal law, education (K-12), police power (health, safety, welfare and morals of the public). ** | Congress did not have authority to regulate this non-economic activity (possession). | Rehnquist says possession is not an economic activity. This activity is not an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme that would be undercut. Dissenters think it's too hard to distinguish what is commercial. Just look for a rational basis | #### US vs Morrison (2000), Gonzales vs Raich (2005) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 2000 | US vs Morrison | Federal law provided a remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence. | *Did Congress have the authority to regulate remedies for gender-motivated violence?* | Using Part 3 of the Lopez framework (to determine if an activity is economic in nature), the Court looked to the conduct itself (it did not look at the consequences and work backward). | Congress did not have authority to regulate gender-motivated violence. | The Court refused to apply the Wickard “in the aggregate” test. To find that this would have an effect would have to pile on inferences (state’s police power). | | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 2005 | Gonzales vs Raich | A California law exempted from criminal prosecution physicians, patients, and caregivers who possessed or cultivated marijuana and had a doctor’s approval. Federal law prohibited the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Two California citizens (who were not buying marijuana) challenged the law, as applied to them. | *Did Congress have authority to regulate the possession and manufacturing of marijuana for personal use? Generally speaking, Congress had authority to enact the law because it was regulating an economic activity with a substantial affect on interstate commerce. But did Congress have authority to regulate the possession and manufacturing for personal use of the respondents?* | **Congress has the authority to regulate even non-economic, local activities if, in the aggregate, the activity would undermine a larger regulatory scheme. Comprehensive regulatory schemes are economic as a whole and not just a single aspect. Congress can regulate even non-economic activities if the activity is a part of a larger scheme and that failure to regulate the activity would undermine a legitimate interest of the legislative branch. Congress sought to regulate drugs by creating a comprehensive regulatory scheme. The Court found that the drug market is a multi-billion dollar industry and that a thriving black market for marijuana exists. This large-scale market would be undermined by failing to regulate marijuana use and production. To determine if an activity is economic, do the drug activities affect the market price or conditions? Do they substitute for a transaction in a lucrative market (similar to Wickard)?** | Congress did have the authority to enact the law, and the law was constitutional, as applied to the respondents (that was a single state) and Morrison (no market at all, like there is for weed). The Court applied the Wickard “in the aggregate” test and the “rational basis” test to say that this activity (marijuana) is a quintessential economic activity. | Unlike Lopez, this case is far more aligned with the reasoning in Wickard. | ### C. Federalism: Other Limits - 10th (State Immunity from Fed Regulation) - The 10th Amendment reserves for the states those powers which were not granted to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited for the states. #### Nat'l League of Cities vs Usery (1976) (Overruled by Garcia), Garcia vs SAMTA (1985) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1976 | Nat'l League of Cities vs Usery | FLSA, originally excluded states, then was extended to all public employees. States feel their power to make policy choices was being supplanted. | Generally, Cong does have auth to regulate wages/hours, but does Cong have auth to regulate State employee wages? | Cong does not have auth to directly displace the States’ sovereignty and freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional state gov func. If allowed, there'd be little left to the states' separate and independent existence. | Congress did not have auth to regulate State employees wages and hours. | Brennan Dissent: States can protect themselves through the political process. What is a traditional state gov activity? | | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1985 | Garcia vs SAMTA | SAMTA argued that operating the city’s mass transit system was traditional state government function so should not be regulated under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Also argued that applying FLSA would place a burden on states to perform traditional governmental functions. | Generally, Cong does have auth to regulate wages/hours, but does Cong have auth to regulate city bus drivers wages? | Cong can impose on the states substantive requirements that it imposes on private actors. The Standard set out in Nat'l League of Cities is unsound in principle and unworkable in practice. *Unsound* - The Constitution has procedural safeguards of federalism, the court should stay out. *Unworkable* - The court should not be making policy decisions on if an activity is an integral traditional governmental function, which would lead to inconsistent results and takes away from democratic principles. | Congress had the authority to expand the FLSA to states. | The Court overruled Nat'l League of Cities and looked to procedural safeguards instead of judicially created limits. *Senate - elected from states + = representative. House - districts. President - Electoral College.* | #### New York vs US (1992), Printz vs US (1997) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1992 | New York vs US | Federal law trying to incentivize states to have radioactive waste disposal sites. The law included a $ incentive - states could charge higher rates to states without a site; an access incentive - a state could deny access entirely to states without a site; and a take-title provision - if no disposal, states must take title to waste generated by the company. | Does Congress have auth to incentivize states to act in order to further a regulatory program? | Congress cannot force states to regulate a certain field, but can encourage and incentivize involvement (both in general terms or in specific instances). That encouragement cannot cross the line from encouragement to coercion because that would be commandeering. **1st Anti-Commandeering Principle: Congress cannot enact a law which is directed only to states which is not generally applicable to private actors.** **This law is directed only towards states. ** | The court found that Congress did not have the authority to enact the take-title provision of the law directed only to the states, because the incentives went beyond what was merely encouragement. | Different than Garcia because the FLSA was generally applicable to private companies and states. Allowing the federal government to enact laws targeting states as encouragement would cause accountability problems for the states. | | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1997 | Printz vs US | Federal law forcing state law enforcement officers to run background checks on people trying to buy guns. | Did Congress have authority to compel state executives to perform this task? | Congress cannot circumvent states by directing their executives. This would still be commandeering. **2nd Anti-Commandeering Principle: Congress cannot enact a law which is directed only to states, as an intermediary, instead of as an end.** | Congress would not have had authority to enforce this on states. The Court found that this law is commandeering, and going to executives doesn’t avoid the problem, because this would blur accountability lines. States would absorb all the burdens of implementing. | Directing elected state officials to do something in furtherance of federal programs would blur accountability lines. | #### Reno vs Condon (2000) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 2000 | Reno vs Condon | Federal law prohibited the states and private individuals from selling people’s private information obtained from their driving record/license. | Did Congress have authority to regulate states in selling people's info? | *When the state is engaged in a private activity for profit, then the state is equal to an individual citizen to whom a generally applicable law would apply to.* | Congress had authority to prohibit the states from selling people’s info. | The Court found that states were acting like private actors. The law did not require states to create any other laws or enforce anything. | ### E. The Spending Power - **Article 1, Section 8** Congress has the power to lay/collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises; to pay debts and provide for common defense and general Welfare of US #### US vs Butler (1936), South Dakota Vs Dole (1987), NFIB vs Sebelius (Medicaid Expansion) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1936 | US vs Butler | Federal law involved a grant of funds to farmers to induce them to adhere to a quota. | Does Congress have authority to grant funds to farmers to stick to a quota? | Congress does not have the power within its spending clause to enact laws that provide money to people, if that law achieves an end that is not within its enumerated powers. | Congress did not have authority to grant funds to individual farmers. | Madison: spending for the common defense and general welfare VS. Hamilton: spending clause authorizing spending to promote the general welfare. | | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1987 | South Dakota Vs Dole | Federal law ordering the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 5% of highway funds from states that didn’t adopt a 21-year-old minimum drinking age. South Dakota, with a 19-year-old drinking age, challenged the law. | Does Cong have auth to incentivize participation in one program by threatening to reduce funding for another program? | **Federal Spending is permissible when: 1. It is for the general welfare (extreme deference + special interest is not general welfare) 2. If conditioned; the condition is clearly stated. 3. If conditioned, the condition is germane (rationally related) to the purpose of the program (extreme deference) 4. It can’t be barred by the Constitution (within text and federalism’s anti-commandeering principles).** | Congress did have the authority to enact the law, incentivizing participation in one program by threatening to reduce funding for another program. | *Safe interstate travel is of interest to the general population. * *Condition is unambiguous. * *Safe interstate travel is related to the reduction in drunk driving, and therefore is related to the program’s purpose. * *The federal government threatening to reduce federal funds, which amounts to less than 1% of the state budget, is not coercion.* | | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 2012 | NFIB vs Sebelius (Medicaid Expansion) | Medicaid expansion included increasing the number of eligible participants plus increased funding to the states. The law also threatened to remove all Medicaid funding if no participation. | Does Cong have auth to incentivize participation in Medicaid expansion by threatening to withdrawal all Medicaid funding? | The conditions which were allowed were not a complete change in the law, but rather considered in degree. The condition was found to be ambiguous, because the Medicaid statutes allowed some altering, not a complete change. The condition was found to be coercive, because a significant amount of money, 20% of state funding, was being threatened in exchange for participation in the Medicaid expansion. Congress also could not threaten to pull funds from one program for not participating in another program. The threat was overly drastic, and Congress knew that no state would refuse (provided no backup)—it was coercive. | Congress did not have the authority to incentivize participation in the Medicaid expansion by threatening to withhold all Medicaid funding. | *The provision was not necessary and proper. There were other ways to accomplish the goal because there are other ways to accomplish the goal, but the Necessary and Proper Clause doesn't mean "absolutely necessary." The provision may not be entirely new. There is a large portion of Americans on Medicaid. The condition is clearly stated. It is also rationally related to the program, and the threat did not extend to other programs; the provision is not overly coercive. * | ## Part III. Separation of Powers (Horizontal Separation) ### Federalist Papers - **#47** Defense of Const: Const doesn't violate principles of sep of powers because one branch's complete control of another branch's whole power is still prohibited, but powers cannot be completely separated. There is supposed to partial agency. - **#48**: "Cannot trust mere parchment barriers" because of the nature of humans to encroach on others power. Instead of placing textual barriers, let ambition counteract ambition. Leg is most dang branch, keep vs - **#51**: We must effectively resist "a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department." ## 1. Federal Executive Power ### A. Domestic Affairs #### Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co vs Sawyer (1952) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1952 | Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co vs Sawyer | Truman issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of steel mills because steel was needed for weapons in the Korean War. Even though dealing with war, the court looked at it as a domestic affair because the order was affecting US citizens. | Did POTUS have authority to issue an executive order seizing steel mills? | **Jackson framework for presidential power:** 1. **Potus acting with Congressional Authority:** Potus and Congress; To deny: Must be beyond the scope of federal government as a whole. This is where the President will argue. 2. **Potus (Congress Silent):** Potus; look to contemporary imponderables and imperatives of events, practice is important. 3. **Potus Against Congress:** Potus v. Congress; To allow must be a power exclusively and preclusively granted to Potus (veto, pardon). *This is where the executive order fell, because there were two similar laws that did not authorize regulation by seizure, which the Court inferred meant that it was not in Congress’s will. With respect to domestic affairs, Potus only has power to act if the Constitution or a statute expressly or implicitly conferred such authority, not inherent power.* | Potus did not have authority to seize steel mills. | *This case was a major test of the power of the president in a domestic crisis. It established the principle that, in the absence of congressional authorization, the president can only act in domestic affairs if the action is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. This is important because it limits the president’s ability to act unilaterally when there is a conflict between the executive branch and Congress.* **Effective Gov: Ability of Potus to make resolutions in a crisis VS. Individual Liberty: Invasion of Liberty** **Frankfurter Opinion: ** The Court noted that three isolated instances were not a systematic, unbroken executive practice known and acquiesced by Congress, and never before questioned. It found that traditional ways of conducting government do not supplant the Constitution, but give meaning to words. The Court noted that Congress had expressly authorized how to do this and had rejected the executive’s action. **Black’s Concurrence:** He noted that the seizure was a legislative action, but the actor was the executive branch. This is a usurpation of Congress’s power. | ### B. President’s Authority Over Foreign Affairs | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1981 | Dames & Moore v. Regan | Iranian Hostage Crisis, then Potus freezes Iranian assets. Finally come to an agreement, and Congress declares the assets will be unfrozen and litigation between the government and nationals will be terminated. The President issues an order: (1) expunging attachments and (2) suspending litigation. | Did Potus have the authority to (1) expunge attachments and (2) suspend litigation between nationals and the government? | 1. **Category 1:** Because of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which expressly granted Potus this power. 2. **Category 2:** Potus may have authority when Congress enacts legislation which evinces their intent to give Potus broad discretion, and there is no contrary indication of legislative intent. 3. **Category 3:** Potus may have authority when there is a history of Congressional acquiescence (the action has happened so much that a statute was created to outline the procedure). This is in contrast to Youngstown, where there was clear disapproval. *With respect to domestic affairs, Potus only has the power to act if the Constitution or a statute expressly or implicitly conferred such authority, not inherent power.” **Category 2** was deemed most appropriate here. | Potus did have the authority to do this. | **Rehnquist:** 3 categories are more of a spectrum - from express approval to express prohibition. This outcome allowed Potus to enter into international agreements to settle claims in the absence of express statutory or constitutional authority. | #### US vs Curtiss Wright (1936), Goldwater vs Carter (1979) | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1936 | US vs Curtiss Wright | A statute said that if Potus makes it a crime to sell weapons to Bolivia, then it’s a crime. FDR issued an executive order saying it was a crime. | Can Congress give Potus this authority? Does Potus have the authority to do this? | *Potus does more than just articulate for the US, he FORMULATES as the US’s representative. Long-standing practice: give Potus broad discretion in Foreign Affairs. Federal government power in foreign affairs is limited. * Two Justices: This case was not ripe for judicial review. Four Justices: This case was purely political. It was not judiciable because coequal branches with resources available could protect and assert their interests. This outcome practically allowed Potus to exercise some foreign affairs powers not expressly granted in the Constitution. | This auth of power and Potus’ ability to have this power was valid. | **Marshall:** “Potus is the sole organ of the fed govt.” | | Year | Case Name | Facts | Issue | Rules | Holding | Extra | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1979 | Goldwater vs Carter | After World War II, the PRC and ROC were rival governments in China. The United States had been in a treaty and recognized the ROC as the government. Carter withdrew the treaty and recognized the PRC. | Can Potus terminate treaties unilaterally? Or is that depriving Congress of its constitutional role in enacting legislation? | The Court did not rule on whether the president could terminate treaties unilaterally. However, the Court suggested that although the president may have a role in terminating treaties, Congress may also have a role. Even if the president has sole authority over the termination of treaties, Congress may be able to enact legislation to limit that authority. Two Justices: This was not ripe for judicial review. Four Justices: This was purely political.