Chapter
2
|
Chapter
2 |
|
THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
Introduction [47]
The federal system allocates power between the national and state governments.
§2.01
Main Features [47-50]
1.) Union of autonomous states
2.) Division of powers between national government and states
3.) Direct operation of each government within its sphere on all within its territorial boundaries
4.) Law enforcement apparatus in each level of government
5.) Federal supremacy over conflicting state action.
[2] Union of Autonomous States
1. The Supremacy Clause provides the textual basis for this principle.
2. Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted the clause to mean:
a. states may not interfere with the federal government and
b. constitutional federal action prevails over inconsistent state action.
[1] Federal Immunity From State Taxation: An Overview
The Tenth Amendment provides the support for those who argue for a more expansive state power. Although some argue that it is a tautology, others point to it as a structural confirmation of limits on federal power.
Interposition
rests on the proposition that the states, having entered into a compact to
form the Union, retain the right to assert their sovereignty to trump unwanted
federal action. The Supreme Court
rejected this idea in Cooper v. Aaron,
358
U.S. 1 (1958) and elsewhere.
Police power refers to the state power to legislate to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) the Court articulated different visions of the Tenth Amendment. Five justices argued that the Tenth Amendment reserved to the states only powers they possessed before the Constitution was created. Four justices contended that the states retained all power not denied them.
§2.03
Federal Police Power [54]
Although technically there is no federal police power, the Commerce Clause has served as the basis for the federal government to take action to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens.
§2.04
Supremacy and State Taxation
[54-58]
[1] Federal Immunity From State Taxation: An
Overview
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) held that Maryland could not tax notes issued by the Bank of the United States.
Federal tax immunity exists whenever the state seeks to tax the United States or an agency or instrumentality closely related to it so the two cannot be viewed as separate entities.
Federal property is also exempt from state taxation. More complicated rules apply when a state seeks to tax private citizens using federal property.
More recent decisions have denied tax immunity simply because a state tax would affect the United States. Thus, states have been allowed to tax federal contractors in some instances.
Congress retains authority to extend federal tax immunity in situations beyond those implicit in the Constitution.
§2.05
Supremacy and Police Power
[58-59]
The
Supremacy Clause immunizes activities of the federal government from state
regulation. Yet states may regulate,
to some extent, private parties who work for the United States or those who
do business with the federal government.
§2.06
State Tax Immunities [60-61]
In 1870, the Court held in Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 113 (1870), the salaries of state officers immune from federal taxation. This doctrine of reciprocal state tax immunity was overruled around 1940. And in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988), the Court overruled the holding that state bond interest was immune from nondiscriminatory federal tax.
§2.07
State Regulatory Immunities
[61-63]
1. Whether a state is subject to regulation by a generally applicable federal law presents a more controversial question.
2. In National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), the Court held in a 5-4 decision that Congress could not subject states to wage and hour regulations imposed on private employers. The Commerce Clause did not authorize regulation of states acting in areas of “traditional governmental functions.”
3. However, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), the Court, in another 5-4 decision overruled National League of Cities. The “traditional governmental function” test was unworkable and the Court concluded that the Constitution imposed no judicially enforceable immunities for states from generally applicable federal laws. Instead, the states should look for protection from the political process where they were represented. Although Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor suggested in their dissents that Garcia would be overturned when the Court’s composition changed, it has survived through at least the October, 2002 term.
§2.08
Republican Government and Violence
[63-65]
Article
IV requires that the United States guarantee every state a Republican form
of government. In Luther v. Burden, 48 U.S.
(7 How.) 1 (1849), a case which arose out of the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode
Island, the Court rejected the claim that courts could enforce such claims,
suggesting their resolution rested with the political departments.
§2.09
Cooperative Federalism
[65-71]
[1] The Federal Government and the States
State officials may help enforce federal laws but the Constitution limits the ability of the federal government to require that they do so. Based upon the Supremacy Clause, state officials are obligated to follow and obey federal law and to apply it instead of conflicting state law. In addition, Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947), held that Congress could require state courts to hear federal cases and to enforce federal law.
Congress cannot however commandeer the state legislature by requiring it to enact specific legislation. Congress can give a state the choice between legislating as Congress wants or accepting federal preemption in an area within federal power. It may also give the states incentives to legislate according to a federal plan by use of conditional grants under the Spending Power. It cannot however require the state to legislate in a particular way. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144(1992).
Congress also is limited in its ability to require state executive officials to administer a federal regulatory program. In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the Court struck down a provision of the Brady Bill which required local law enforcement officials to investigate prospective handgun purchasers. The Court held that Congress could not conscript state officials to administer a federal program although Justice O’Connor’s concurrence suggested that state officials could be required to perform certain information reporting functions.
[2] Litigating Against a State
The Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
Although the Eleventh Amendment on its face seems limited to diversity situations (i.e. when a citizen of state A sues state B in federal court) the Courts have give it wider application.
In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that Congress could not abrogate the state’s sovereign immunity in federal court pursuant to an Article I power. The Court held that Congress could abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court only pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Seminole Tribe did not foreclose all remedies a private party might have against a state. In addition to the Fourteenth Amendment, it left open the possibility of suit against a state in state court.
In Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), the Court in a 5-4 decision held that a private party could not sue a state for money damages in state court, thereby closing one of the remedies Seminole Tribe left open. The Court relied on the Tenth Amendment to extend the concept of sovereign immunity to this application.
More recently, the Court extended the state’s sovereign immunity to prevent a federal administrative agency from adjudicating a private party’s claim against a state run entity.
The Court has limited Congress’ ability to use the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate state sovereign immunity. In several cases, it has held that Congress’ legislation in question was not directed at a sufficiently widespread pattern of past state conduct to justify abrogating state sovereign immunity.
The dissenters in Seminole Tribe and Alden have argued in part that the Eleventh Amendment does not extend beyond diversity suits in federal court and that any other principle regarding sovereign immunity rests on the common law, not the Constitution, and accordingly can be abrogated by Congress.
States may still be subject to suit if they consent to be sued and state officials can be sued in an Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) action for prospective injunctive relief or for monetary relief provided that it comes from the officer, not the state treasury. The federal government can sue a state as can another state.
|
Chapter
2 |
|