Final 1 Flashcards
(127 cards)
Garcia v San Antonio
o Congress passes the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has minimum wage and overtime protections. Metro Transit Authority does not want to comply with these requirements and argues it’s a traditional governmental function so immune.
o Traditional Test: whether or not the federal action operated in an area of “traditional local government function.”
o Holding: Not immune.
• The test is whether the enforcement of the act is destructive of state sovereignty or violates any constitutional provision or is not passed in furtherance of a delegated power.
• New York v. United States (68)
o Holding: The federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, like the “take title” nuclear waste program.
• Problem: Federalism (oversteps federal-state co-sovereignty)
• Does Congress have the power to deal with low-level waste nationwide? No.
• This action commandeers state governments into service of federal regulatory purposes, inconsistent with division of authority
• Cannot command states to initiative legislation (not properly conditional, not under commerce or spending, instead it’s a threat)
• United States v. Lopez (69)
o Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 prevents carrying a gun near school or federal criminal law violation.
o Court holds that there are three broad categories of things that can fall within the commerce power:
• Channels of interstate commerce
• Instrumentalities of interstate commerce
• Substantial relationship to interstate commerce (affecting interstate commerce)
• For Commercial Activity: It doesn’t matter whether this particular instance of activity directly affects interstate commerce, as long as it is part of a general class that collectively substantially affects it
• For Non-Commercial Activity: Must have an obvious connection between the activity and the commerce
o Holding: The Act is unconstitutional because it doesn’t substantially affect interstate commerce. Possessing a gun is not interstate commerce.
• States have a right to pass a law like the Gun Free Act, but the federal government does NOT have the right.
o Rule: There are limits upon how far Congress can go in passing Acts regulating interstate commerce
o Court holds that there are three broad categories of things that can fall within the commerce power:
- Channels of interstate commerce
- Instrumentalities of interstate commerce
- Substantial relationship to interstate commerce (affecting interstate commerce)
- For Commercial Activity: It doesn’t matter whether this particular instance of activity directly affects interstate commerce, as long as it is part of a general class that collectively substantially affects it
- For Non-Commercial Activity: Must have an obvious connection between the activity and the commerce
• Printz v. United States (73)
Brady Acto
Brady Act (federal law) made anyone buying a gun subject to a background check. It required local law enforcement officers to perform background checks on applicants for handgun permits (extra work for the state).
o Holding: The Act is commandeering state officials- the FBI should be doing the checks, not state police.
o Rule: The federal government can’t command state or local government executives to enforce a federal program; infringes upon right of locality to exercise its own sovereignty
• South Dakota v. Dole (87)
o Federal highway funds were withheld from states that allowed purchase or possession of alcohol by persons under 21. South Dakota sold alcohol to 19 year olds, and argued the federal statute was unconstitutional.
o Rule: Congress may condition spending as long as:
• 1) It is in pursuit of the general welfare
• 2) Congress conditions states receipt of funds unambiguously
• 3) It is not coercive- Congress can’t use the spending power to compel, but may use it to encourage states to do something with monetary incentives
o Holding: The statute is constitutional. Congress has acted indirectly under its spending power to encourage uniformity in states drinking ages.
• Condition is directly related to safe interstate travel, which is a general welfare interest of the country (discourages drinking and driving).
• All power over local governments rests in the absolute discretion of
the state can destroy charters without consent
o Federal Constitution provides NO protection
• State constitutions can create more protection for
municipal corporations
o Example: Michigan
o Article 7, Section 22 deals with cities and villages
• Electors have the free ability to adopt and amend its charter which was granted by the state
• Each city shall have the power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns (general grant of power to incorporated cities)
• However, still subject to the constitution and law
• So, in Michigan, a legislative act can limit or eliminate the power in Michigan
o Article 7, Section 21 deals with incorporation of municipalities
• Says that legislature shall supply for the incorporation of cities and villages
• Directs the legislature to set up a general incorporation law and include requirements for incorporation.
• Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council (104)
o In 1996, the Massachusetts Burma Law,
o Held: that the state Act is preempted and its application unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
• Massachusetts’ law created an obstacle to the President’s discretion to have flexible and effective authority over economic sanctions with Burma
• Here, Expressly Preempted– invalid under the Supremacy Clause…owing to its threat of frustrating federal statutory objectives.
• If not express, still 2 circumstances when state law must yield to congressional act:
o When congress intends federal law to “occupy the field”
o If not occupied the field, preemption to extent of any conflict with federal statute
• “will find preemption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal law”
• Shad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim (130)
defining the community
o Rule: If a zoning law infringes on protected liberty (the speech here is conceded to be protected), it must be:
• Narrowly draw, AND
• Further a substantial governmental interest
o The interest asserted here is to “preserve the area to serve the immediate needs of the residents, and to reduce problems such as parking and trash and other effects that occur if there is live entertainment.
o The Court holds that this is not sufficient, and the ordinance is struck down
o Community Restrictions on Nude Dancing etc.
• Playtime held that restricting locations of adult theatres within 1000 feet of a residential zone is okay because of secondary effects.
o Constitutes a reasonable time, place, and manner exception.
o This is only true if there is the opportunity to make the speech SOMEWHERE.
• Barnes held that a state public indecency statute requiring dancers to wear pasties and g-string does not violate First Amendment.
• Alameda Books upheld ordinance that prohibited the establishment or maintenance of more than one adult entertainment business in the same building.
o Remember that you can regulate because of secondary effects
• Increase in crime in area around business, increase in blight, reduction in property values-must be factually established or by expert testimony
o Here, reduces crime after a study that city conducted concluded that concentrations of adult businesses are associated with higher crime rates.
• D & M Country Estates v. Romriell (138)
o Here, the property owner wants to convert the property into a group home. The neighbors object on the grounds that there are restrictive covenants on the land, which occurred when the original developer came up with a master plan.
o State law says that “it is the policy of this state that elderly citizens are entitled to live in normal residential subdivision.”
o The Court holds that this statute cannot be said to be intended to affect any private contracts or property rights of parties.
o Therefore, this would have constituted a taking by the legislature and therefore these covenants are upheld
o What if the ordinance had INCLUDED private deeds?
• Would have constituted a taking without just compensation
• Remember, this is a real “stick” out of the bundle, and therefore is a true property interest.
Definiton of family
o It seems that the statement that “housing up to eight unrelated adults in an institutionalized setting violates the restriction against use by more than two families” turns heavily on the definition of “family.”
o Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (142)
- Defines family as “one or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants.”
- SCOTUS upheld the ordinance as a permissible exercise of zoning power because laying out zones where “family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people” is a permissible exercise of police power.
Moore v city of east cleveland
- Defines family as “a number of individuals related to the nominal head of the household or to his/her spouse living together as a single housekeeping unit in a single dwelling unit.”
- Court invalidated this because it limited class of “families” to only a few categories of related individuals.
- Says that it treaded upon the basic right to cohabitate with family members, which necessitated a compelling state interest.
o Poletown Neighborhood Council v City of Detroit (144)
• Brief Fact Summary. A city condemned private property in order to give it to a corporation so jobs would not be lost.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Condemnation for the public welfare cannot be forbidden, even if there is incidental private gain.
Facts. High unemployment exists in the City of Detroit (Defendant). General Motors decided to end its manufacturing operations in the city. If they left, the unemployment numbers would substantially increase, and then the city would lose millions of dollars in real estate and income tax revenues. General Motors made an overture to the city about finding a suitable plant site in the city. A site was found, and the city used the power of eminent domain to evict the residents from their homes. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of using the power of eminent domain to condemn one person’s property to convey it to a private person.
Court held that the state had proper authority and proper public purpose to condemn 400 acres of Poletown for a GM plant. A proper public purpose was served because it created jobs and benefited the region as a whole.
• GM threatened to leave without land, city depended on GM economically, paid $62 million to those displaced
• Which community should have been entitled to make the decision of whether these costs were worth incurring? (human, neighborhood, financial)
• Residents of Poletown or Detroit? Employees of GM?
• If a city council believes the city as a whole would be better off favoring GM over displaced residents, (why) should a court second guess?
• Kramer v. Union Free School District (148)
o City limited the population that could vote in school district election to only those who owned taxable real property.
o Holding: The statute was not sufficiently tailored to meet the state interest, since its classification excluded residents of the school district who had direct interest in school board elections.
• Cipriano v. City of Houma (149)
o City limited population that could vote in elections to approve issuance of revenue bonds to those who owned taxable real property.
o Holding: The statute was invalidated because may people who don’t own real property have a recognizable interest in the issuance of revenue bonds.
• Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa (148)
o Holt is a small rural community on the outskirts of Tuscaloosa. Holt residents are subject to Tuscaloosa’s “police jurisdiction”, sanitary regulations, and business requirements under AL statute. Holt residents are upset because they can’t vote on these provisions that have power over their community.
o Holt residents filed suit, claiming that Tuscaloosa’s extraterritorial exercise of police powers denies residents their 14th Amendment franchise rights.
o Rule: A governmental unit may restrict the right to participate in its political processes (vote) to those who reside within its borders. This doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment.
o Holding: Holt residents are only subject to the specific authority of the city (the police powers), so they don’t enjoy the same right to vote since they are not subject to ALL of the authority of the city.
Moorman v wood
o This deals with an annexation issue (state law). The state legislature of Kentucky amends the state annexation law to allow another adjoining community to annex a part of an existing municipality and that only the area being annexed has a right to vote on that question. Adjoining city began annexing Fort Wright (which at the time was part of the city of Covington).
• The people of Fort Wright overwhelmingly approved de-annexation.
• Citizens of Covington respond that this denies the right of all other residents of Covington to vote on the de-annexation measure.
o Court holds that in all “voting rights” cases, it is clear that the right to vote can be limited to the residents of the governmental unit or areas concerned.
• Since “voting rights” are not concerned here (because people in the area concerned did actually vote), the test is rational basis.
o Rule: There is no property right/liberty interest in living within a particular political subdivision (Hunter v. City of Pittsburg)
o Holding: The annexation is enforceable. The Constitution is silent on the subjects of consolidating metropolitan governments and decentralizing governments of small towns, so it cannot be struck down.
• There is a rational basis AND a compelling state interest in the state moving to adopt this annexation under the circumstances.
• Hunter v. Pittsburgh (163)
o Rule: There is no property right/liberty interest in living within a particular political subdivision
o Limitations on state power: actions cannot infringe upon constitutionally (fed or state) protected right or statutory right
o Localities possessed no 14th Amendment rights against their creator the state.
n 1906, Pennsylvania passed a law permitting the joining of adjacent municipalities if, during an election regarding the issue, the majority of all votes passed approve the union. Subsequently, the City of Pittsburgh filed in state court to begin the process of an election regarding joining with the City of Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Allegheny pushed back but was turned down in court. The election was allowed to continue, and a majority of all voters within the two cities combined voted for joining. However, a vast majority of voters in Allegheny voted in opposition; thus, most of the votes in favor came from Pittsburgh. But because the majority of the total votes were in favor, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled the union constitutional under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiffs appealed under the United States Constitution Article 1 section 10 paragraph 1 (contract clause) and Amendment 14 (due process clause).
Gomillion v Lightfoot
o Act redraws the boundaries of Tuskegee, which would exclude the black population from voting in city elections. A group of black citizens filed suit, claiming that the Act is their 14th and 15th Amendment rights.
o Rule: The city cannot take an action that infringes upon a constitutional right of its citizens.
o Holding: The Act violates the provision of the 15th Amendment, which prohibits states from denying anyone their right to vote on account of race.
o Concurring: The Act violates the 14th Amendment rights to Due Process and Equal Protection, rather than the 15th Amendment.
A municipal corporation is
is the legal term for a local governing body, including (but not necessarily limited to) cities, counties, towns, townships, charter townships, villages, and boroughs. The term can also be used to describe municipally owned corporations.[1][2][3]
Municipal incorporation
occurs when such municipalities become self-governing entities under the laws of the state or province in which they are located. Often, this event is marked by the award or declaration of a municipal charter. A city charter or town charter or municipal charter) is a legal document establishing a municipality such as a city or town.[citation needed]
