Con Law

Front 1

3 main eras of Commerce Clause Analysis

Back 1

1) Pre-1937 (narrow interpretation)

2) 1937-1995 (regulatory power expanded)

3) 1995-Present (federal power reigned in)

Front 2

Gibbons v. Ogden

Back 2

Topic: Commerce Clause (Era 1)

Hint: steamboat owners

Rule: commerce not limited to the buying and selling of goods but also covers navigation. (commercial intercourse).

Note: Origin of the Dormant Commerce Clause

Front 3

Hammer v. Dagenhart

Back 3

Topic: Commerce Clause (Era 1)

Hint: protective child labor law struck down.

Reasoning: the law dealt with manufacturing, which is a matter of local regulation.

Rule: regulation of manufacturing is beyond the scope of the federal commerce power.

Front 4

New Deal Legislation

Back 4

President Roosevelt attempted to push many relief efforts through congress via the commerce power. SCOTUS struck many down for lack of a direct effect on commerce. The decisions were vulnerable because they were based on arbitrary distinctions between commerce, manufacturing, and production. In 1937 Justice Roberts changed his position (the switch in time saved nine) and averted a showdown between the branches.

Front 5

4 aspects of the the 1937-1995 era

Back 5

1) a broader reading of the word "commerce"

2) a relaxed interpretation of interpreting "among the several states". (moved from a substantial effect to any effect)

3) significant deference to congress (the judiciary backed off)

4) diminution of the role and power of the tenth Amendment.

Front 6

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel

Back 6

Topic: Commerce (Era 2)

Hint: a challenge to the National Labor Relations Act.

Holding: Although the employee discharges may be an intrastate activity, the repercussions from such discharges have the potential to significantly affect interstate commerce.

Rule: commerce expanded to include intrastate commerce that has such a "close and substantial relation" to interstate commerce that their control is essential.

Front 7

U.S v. Darby

Back 7

Topic: Commerce (Era 2)

Hint: Challenge to the Fair Labor Standards Act (prohibited the interstate shipment of goods made by employees paid less than min wage).

Holding: court rejected that regulation of production was solely up to the states.

Rule: the shipment of goods interstate is such commerce and the prohibition of such shipment by Congress is a proper exercise of that regulation.

Front 8

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S

Back 8

Hint: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 questioned.

Rule: upheld by deferring to congressional findings that the reach of the hotel industry across the country affects commerce among the several states.

Front 9

10th Amendment

Back 9

Text:"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."

Translation: All is retained which has not been surrendered. The federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Era 2: federal power was on the rise, state power on the decline.

Front 10

U.S v. Lopez (1995) (the turning point & revival of a narrower reading of the commerce power)

Back 10

Topic: Commerce (Era 2)

Hint: gun in school zone.

Holding: congress exceeded its commerce power in enacting the Gun-Free School Zone Act.

Rule: 3 places where congress can regulate under the commerce power:

1) channels of interstate commerce

2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce

3) intrastate activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce. (substantial effects test)

Front 11

Dormant Commerce Clause

Back 11

1. Not enumerated but inferred.

2. Even when congress has not acted to regulate, state and local laws can still be challenged as unduly interfering with interstate commerce.

3. The framers intended to prevent protectionist state laws that would interfere with commerce.

Front 12

Reasons for the Dormant Commerce Clause

Back 12

1) Historical: building a cohesive nation

2) Economic: promote the national economy by striking local protectionist legislation.

3) Political: citizens should not be harmed by legislation of other states where they lack political representation.

Front 13

3 kinds of Discriminatory Legislation

Back 13

1) Facially Discriminatory (strictest scrutiny)--virtually per se invalid unless necessary for an important purpose.

2) Facially Neutral but clearly protectionist (strict scrutiny)--typically stricken as impermissibly burdensome.

3) simply have a disproportionately adverse impact. (intermediate scrutiny & Pike Balancing Test)--laws will be invalid if their burden on commerce outweighs the benefit to the state.

Front 14

Philadelphia v. New Jersey

Back 14

Topic: D.C.C violation. (Type 1)

Hint: court struck down a NJ law that struck barred waste importation.

Rule: a state may not discriminate against articles of commerce coming from outside the state "unless there is some reason to treat them differently."

Front 15

Dean Milk Co. v. Madison

Back 15

Topic: D.C.C violation (Type 1)

Hint: a local ordinance barred the sale of pasteurized milk unless processed at facilities within a 5 mile radius of Madison.

Holding: clearly protectionist in favor of Wi businesses. The goal (public health) while valid, could be achieved through other means.

Rule: Laws are invalid where they erect barriers to the free flow of interstate commerce even in an area where congress has not acted.

Front 16

Carbone v. Clarkstown

Back 16

Topic: D.C.C violation (Type 1)

Hint: mandatory waste disposal at a private facility.

Rule: discrimination against interstate commerce in favor of local business is per se invalid, save in a narrow class of cases where they can prove that's it's the only way to advance a legitimate local interest.

Front 17

Kassel v. Consolidated Freight

Back 17

Topic: D.C.C violation (Type 2)

Hint: Iowa banned 65 ft double wides because they were dangerous.

Holding: Findings--1) not safer 2) other states didn't have similar laws 3) imposed a great economic burden on trucking companies 4) smelled of protectionist desires over public safety. Failed the balancing test.

Front 18

Privileges and Immunities Clause

Back 18

Text: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

Translation: limits the ability of one state to discriminate against out-of-staters with regard to fundamental rights or important economic activities. It's another tool to challenge discrimination.

Differences: 1) only applies to out-of-staters. 2) only applies to citizens.

Front 19

Preemption

Back 19

stemming from the supremacy clause, where congress has acted on an issue, federal action may preempt state action. Two kinds:

1. Express: expressly declares

2. Implied: from a clear congressional intent

Front 20

Pacific Gas & Electric

Back 20

Topic: Preemption

Hint: Ca moratorium on Nuclear power plant production was challenged with the fed atomic energy act (AEA) .

Holding: state law upheld. No preemption here.

Reasoning: the fed act was meant to regulate economics, not safety and the states are normally left to regulating electrical needs.

Front 21

2 Preemption inquiries

Back 21

1) characterize the federal objective

2) characterize the state law and purpose

Front 22

Hunt, Governor of NC v. Washington State Apple Commission

Back 22

Rule: If a discriminatory state law places an undue burden on interstate commerce without the availability of a nondiscriminatory alternative AND does not provide local benefits, it is in violation of the dormant commerce clause.

Front 23

Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery

Back 23

Rule: The Commerce Clause requires states to use the least restrictive restraints on interstate commerce to achieve a legitimate goal.