Final Review (Anticommandeering) Flashcards
(7 cards)
What is the test for a Fundamental Right?
(Substantive Due Process) First seen in Palko v. Connecticut (1937), but formally adopted in Glucksberg v. Washington (1997).
1. Is the asserted right deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition?
2. Is the right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist without it?
What are the Equal Protection Scrutiny Tiers?
(Equal Protection)
1. Rational Basis: Legitimate Interest; Rationally Related (Not patently arbitrary); Burden on Challenger; Context-Economic Regulation, Age, Wealth
2. Intermediate: Important Interest; Substantially related; Burden on Gov./Shared; Context-Sex
3. Strict: Compelling Interest; Narrowly tailored, least restrictive means; Burden on Gov.; Race, national origin, alienage, fundamental rights, one person one vote.
(Major) Garcia v. San Antonia Metro Transit Authority (1985)
(Federalism / Tenth Amendment / Commerce Clause) A public transit authority challenged the application of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to its employees, arguing that regulating a traditional state function violated state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.
1. The Court upheld the application of the FLSA, holding that the Tenth Amendment does not protect states from generally applicable federal laws regulating commerce.
2. Overruled National League of Cities v. Usery (1976), rejecting the idea that the Court could define “traditional government functions” immune from federal regulation.
3. Introduced the Political Safeguards of Federalism Theory: protection for state sovereignty comes primarily through the national political process (representation in Congress), not through judicially enforced limits.
(Major) New York v. United States (1992)
(Anticommandeering) New York challenged federal provisions requiring states to either regulate the disposal of radioactive waste according to federal instructions or take ownership of the waste themselves.
1. The Court held that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, striking down the “take title” provision as a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
2. Congress may incentivize state cooperation through conditional funding (Spending Clause, South Dakota v. Dole) or offer states a choice between regulating under federal standards or leaving regulation to the federal government itself.
3. Anticommandeering Principle: The federal government may encourage but may not directly force state legislatures to govern according to federal instructions.
(Major) Printz v. United States (1997)
(Anticommandeering) Local sheriffs challenged a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
1. The Court struck down the federal mandate, holding that Congress cannot commandeer state or local executive officials to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program, even temporarily.
2. The Anticommandeering Principle protects state sovereignty by prohibiting the federal government from directly conscripting state executive officers to execute federal laws.
3. Distinguished from permissible federal actions: Congress can regulate private actors directly or offer incentives to states, but it cannot force state officers into federal service.
Reno v. Condon (2000)
(Anticommandeering) South Carolina challenged the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), which restricted how states could disclose personal information gathered by their Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs).
1. The Court upheld the DPPA, holding that Congress may regulate states as owners of databases or market participants, without violating the Anticommandeering Doctrine.
2. Laws that regulate states as participants in commerce (rather than compelling them to legislate or enforce federal programs) are constitutional.
3. The DPPA regulated states’ conduct in the market (selling drivers’ personal data), not the states’ sovereign lawmaking or enforcement capacities. The DPPA regulated states’ activities “generally applicable” to private actors and states alike
(Major) Murphy v. NCAA (2018)
(Anticommandeering) New Jersey challenged the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law prohibiting states from authorizing or licensing sports gambling.
Extended the Anticommandeering Doctrine beyond just positive commands (New York, Printz) to prohibitions.
1. The Court struck down PASPA’s prohibition on state authorization of sports betting, holding that Congress cannot commandeer the states by telling them what laws they must or must not enact.
2. Anticommandeering Principle applies equally to commands to legislate (New York), commands to executive officials (Printz), and prohibitions on state lawmaking (Murphy).
3. If Congress wants to regulate private conduct (e.g., sports gambling), it must regulate private actors directly, not tell the states what to do.
