Federalism
(States v. National Gov’t & Regulation)
Coal Ash: 130 Million Tons of Waste - 60
Minutes - CBS News
Federalism and the Supreme Court
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Stretching federal power
• John Marshall, the Federalist Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, wrote the opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.
• He addressed two questions: "Does Congress have the
authority to charter the bank?" and "Does the state of
Maryland have the power to tax the bank?"
• In a positive answer to the first question, Marshall argued
that the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution,
also known as the "elastic clause," implied that Congress
could charter a national bank in the exercise of its explicit
power to regulate interstate commerce and coin and
regulate money.
• In response to the second question, Marshall affirmed that
"the power to tax is the power to destroy," and that
allowing the state to tax the national bank would therefore
violate the supremacy clause (Article VI) of the
Constitution. By ruling against the state of Maryland, the
Marshall Court greatly expanded the power of the national
government to implement Hamilton's economic vision.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Getting steamed up over commerce...
•
•
•
•
This case disputed who had exclusive rights to control ferry
operations on the Hudson River between NY and NJ.
The state of New York had granted an exclusive license to Aaron
Ogden to operate a ferry on the Hudson.
However, Congress had licensed Thomas Gibbons to operate on
the Hudson under a 1793 act dealing with vessels "employed in the
coasting trade and fisheries." The conflict between the two
steamboat operators -- one licensed by New York and the other by
Congress -- ended up before the Supreme Court.
Marshall declared that the ferry was engaged in interstate
commerce, and it was therefore under the jurisdiction of the national
government. The scope of what constitutes interstate commerce
was broadly defined, and Marshall asserted that Congress had full
power to regulate any activity that fell within this definition. At the
same time, Marshall concluded that matters of "purely internal"
commerce were the exclusive province of the states- thus
introducing the concept of dual federalism.
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Enforcing dual federalism...
• Marshall wrote that the Fifth
Amendment of the Bill of Rights
protected individuals against
actions only by the national
government, not by the state
governments.
• If Barron was entitled to a
remedy, it must be one provided
by the laws of the state of
Maryland or the city of Baltimore.
The effect of Marshall's ruling
was to reinforce the system
known as dual federalism, which
allocated separate and distinct
spheres of power to the national
government and the states.
Scott v. Sandford (1857)
The Supreme Court lights the
fuse...
• The Supreme Court declared that slaves were
property, not citizens, and thus did not
possess any constitutional rights.
• Furthermore, in stating that Congress had no
authority to outlaw slavery in the federal
territories, the Court ruled the Missouri
Compromise itself was unconstitutional,
thereby limiting the power of the national
government over the states.
The 14th Amendment
Three Key Clauses: “No State shall. . .”
1.Privileges and Immunities Clause
2.The Due Process Clause (life liberty
and property may not be deprived
without…)
3.Equal Protection Clause.
Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)
Of privileges and immunities...
• By a narrow 5-4 margin, the Court ruled that the
Louisiana statute did not violate the privileges and
immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. In the
majority's view, this clause only protected rights
granted to citizens by the United States, and not
rights that were the responsibility of the individual
states.
• If there was a right to engage in a lawful occupation,
argued the majority, then this right was one of state
citizenship. Since Louisiana did not grant this right,
and since the state had the responsibility for
regulating public health and safety, the
slaughterhouse monopoly was not unconstitutional.
The Court's decision limited the application of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the states, and
undermined the effort to restore the power of the
national government in the wake of the Civil War.
• US v. Cruickshank (1875)- 15th Amendment does not
apply to an individual’s action, only a state’s.
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Liberty of contract vs. the police
power
Liberty of contract vs. the police
power
• By declaring that the state of New York had no
authority to set a maximum number of working
hours, the Court restricted New York's ability to
regulate business activity in the state. This ability
had generally been considered part of the state's
"police powers" exercised under the "reserve
clause" of the Tenth Amendment.
• Although the state's loss was not the national
government's gain, the Court's decision
appeared to endorse a free-market capitalist
ideology hostile to economic regulation.
1937: The Switch in Time That
Saved Nine
Cooperative Federalism
• In 1936, the Supreme Court invalidated two important pieces of
New Deal legislation (US v. Schechter 1935), the Agricultural
Adjustment Act and the National Recovery Act, on the grounds
that they were beyond the scope of the national government's
authority- specifically the President did not have the authority to
legislate or regulate interstate commerce.
• The Supreme Court began reversing itself in 1937 on many
New Deal-related cases, approving much of what it had
previously struck down. The sudden turnabout has been called
"the switch in time that saved nine"
• The 1937 decisions marked a clear shift in favor of the federal
government's authority to regulate economic matters, and
introduced the era of cooperative federalism. For more than
four decades, the national government worked closely with
state and local governments to administer a host of programs
designed to combat poverty and promote economic
development. During this entire period, the Supreme Court
permitted Congress considerable latitude, under the commerce
clause, to expand the power of the federal government.
US v. Darby (1941)
Tenth Amendment, Smenth Amendment. .
• The Supreme Court called the 10th Amendment a
"constitutional truism." Its just a statement that the states
have independent powers of their own- not a declaration
that state powers are in any way superior to those of the
national government.
• US v. Darby (1941) was a case in which the United
States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards
Act, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under
the Commerce Clause to regulate employment
conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this
case overturned several longstanding precedents,
notably Hammer v. Dagenhart, (1918).
Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954)
The Federal government helps end
racial segregation . .
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
outlawed racial segregation of public education
facilities. Ruling so on the grounds that the
doctrine of "separate but equal" public education
could never truly provide black Americans with
facilities of the same standards available to white
Americans (14th Amendment).
• Brown did not, however, result in the immediate
desegregation of America's public schools, nor
did it mandate desegregation of public
accommodations, such as restaurants or
bathrooms, that were owned by private parties,
which would not be accomplished until the
passage of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
(1964)
Another blow to state discrimination . . .
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v.
United States (1964)
• The Court held that Congress acted well within
its jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce clause
in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Having observed that 75% of the Heart of
Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state,
and that it was strategically located near both
Interstates 75 and 85, the Court found that the
business clearly affected interstate commerce. It
therefore required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to
serve clientele of all races. Thus, De Jure
segregation was over. . . sort of.
National League of
Cities v. Usery
(1976)
The Tenth Amendment makes a
comeback. . .
The Birth of New Federalism



The 10th amendment means that Congress cannot
exercise its power so as to impair on the State's
integrity or their ability to function effectively in a
federal system. Congress may have the authority to
regulate individual businesses under the Commerce
Clause, but in this case they are regulating not just
individuals, but the "States as States."
To allow the federal government to regulate the
states, the majority reasoned, would be to negate the
federal system of government embodied by the
Constitution.
The Court also mentioned that the FLSA's
requirements would result in a substantial cost
burden.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metro
(1985)
The Tenth Amendment is down for the count- again. .
Once again the Tenth Amendment
is a truism. . .
• Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan
Transit Authority (1985), holds that the
Congress has the power under the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution to
extend the Fair Labor Standards Act,
which requires that employers provide
minimum wage and overtime pay to their
employees, to state and local
governments. US v. Darby (1941)
• The decision overruled National League of
Cities v. Usery (1976).
US v. Lopez (1995)
Reeling in the commerce clause...
The Theory of Devolution. . .
• In the Lopez case, the Supreme Court shocked
observers by ruling that in passing the Gun Free
School Zones Act Congress had exceeded its
authority under the commerce clause. By a
margin of 5-4, the Court ruled that local gun
control was a state and local matter, beyond the
power of the federal government to regulate.
The decision in this case represented a major
victory for advocates of greater state autonomy
and “New Federalism.”
US v. Morrison (2000)
Rehnquist says: Violence Against Women
Act - Smilence Against Women Act!
Women need the VAWA, “like a fish
needs a bicycle.” – William H. Rehnquist



In the case of U.S. v. Morrison (2000), the Court
struck down key provisions of the Violence
Against Women Act (1994), which provided
victims of "gender-motivated" violence with the
opportunity to sue their attackers for damages in
federal court.
Although most of the states supported the law,
the Court applied the Lopez precedent and
concluded that Congress had exceeded its
commerce clause authority in enacting this
legislation.
Moreover, the majority declared that the Violence Against Women
Act was also not an acceptable exercise of congressional power to
guarantee equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to the announcement of the Court's opinion in Morrison at:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1261/audioresources
NPR: The Long, Colorful History of the Mann Act
Rehnquist’s New Federalism

PRO
Supporters of the new
judicial federalism
contend that the
Supreme Court has
finally delivered a
well-deserved slap on
the wrist to Congress,
putting an end to the
decades-long
expansion of national
power at the expense
of the states.

CON
Critics of the
Rehnquist Court argue
that decisions such as
Morrison pose a
serious threat to vital
federal civil rights and
anti-discrimination
legislation.
Consumer Issues Top
Supreme Court's Docket :
NPR
Summary:
• For much of the 19th century, the Supreme
Court allowed the federal government to
exercise control over a limited set of
national economic issues, while state
governments were free to set their own
policies on racial matters.
• In the twentieth century, especially after
1937, the Supreme Court extended the
power of Congress to regulate economic
activity and upheld the expansion of
federal power to guarantee civil rights for
all Americans.
• In recent years, however, there has been a
broad movement to return more power to
the states, with support from a narrow
majority of the Supreme Court.