Part 2: Reconstruction to the Burger Court Lecture 20 Federalism Part 2: Reconstruction to the Burger Court

This lecture We will cover the rest of the cycle material Pages 363-374

Reconstruction We get several new amendments All of them have amendment enforcing provisions 13th- Slavery prohibition 14th- Shifted power to the federal government Due Process Birthright citizenship Overrules Scott v. Sanford Repeals the 3/5 clause 15th- Prohibited denial of voting rights based on race

Coyle v. Smith (1911) Coyle v. Smith (1911) Background By the time of this case, the Court had become more of a tool for big business They used the 10th Amendment, among other things to strike down government regulation of business and industry This case is about an issue of the Oklahoma State Capitol Article IV, Section 3 allows Congress to admit new states A condition on the grant of statehood was the state capitol was to remain in Guthrie until at least 1913- a Republican area in a Democratic state It became a state in 1907, and the capitol was moved to Oklahoma City in 1910 By voter of the people- it lost big A landowner in Guthrie sued to block the move

Coyle v. Smith- II Question: Could Congress impose this condition on Oklahoma statehood and could Oklahoma move the capitol before 1913? Arguments For Coyle (keep it in Guthrie) Congress has absolute authority to admit states and it can impose conditions that it determines are appropriate Congress has a history of imposing conditions to adhere to the Republican clause Oklahoma freely agreed to these conditions

Coyle v. Smith- III Arguments For Smith (move capitol to Oklahoma City) The violations sovereignty by not putting all states on similar footing Congress cannot deny a state police powers, including the ability to locate its own capitol A state cannot be bound by an unconstitutional provision that they agreed to

Coyle v. Smith- IV Justice Lurton rules for a 7-2 Court He rules for Oklahoma The power to locate a state capitol is a state function The Admittance Clause only allows certain limitations States were to be on equal footing- the first three states had no such condition “This union was a union of states, equal in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself” Oklahoma is not truly sovereign if it is subject to additional restrictions other state are not This case is mainly important for elevating dual federalism

Some other cases United States v. E.C. Knight Company (1895) An anti-trust regulation of sugar industry struck down They did all their business within the state But they shipped goods out of state The key was the manufacturing stage Hammer v. Dagenhardt (1918) Court strikes down the Federal Child Labor Act of 1915 It sought to ban child labor (14 or less) by targeting interstate shipped goods The Court actually inserts the word expressly into the 10th Amendment He repudiates Marshall and misquotes the language of the 10th Amendment

The New Deal The Court overturned a number of New Deal laws Under the Commerce Clause And 10th Amendment Their dual federalism totally ends with United States v. Darby (1941) Deals with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 Justice Stone wrote for a unanimous Court He explicitly overrules Hammer as bad law The 10th Amendment was not to deprive the federal government of authority This goes back to the Marshall view The 10th Amendment is “but a truism”

The Burger Court Nixon preferred judges more favorable to states’ rights He is able to appoint four justices National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) Question was whether the federal government could impose the FLSA on state employees For the first time in a long time, the 10th Amendment argument won the day Justice Rehnquist, for a 5-4 Court ruled against the Labor Dept. He questioned regulating states in their duties as states- pay This was one of those enclaves Others could be fire protection, police, sanitation, public health, parks Brennan said Rehnquist had ignoring Darby

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) Background This was nearly an identical case as National League of Cities SATS had taken federal money to operate The Labor Dept. said they had to pay wages as laid out in UMTA SAMTA employees sued, wanting the higher wages Question: Did the 10th Amendment make SAMTA immune from having to pay the wages outlined in UMTA as demanded by the Labor Dept.?

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority- II Justice Blackmun rules for a 5-4 Court The difference here is he switches his vote Blackmun had been drifting left for a while No longer one of the “Minnesota Twins” National League of Cities v. Usery is overruled It had barred federal interference in “traditional government functions” But Blackmun says it was never properly defined Lower court disagreements have showed it unworkable States do retain significant sovereignty, but only to the extent that it has not been divested to the federal government by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8 take a lot)

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority- III More from Blackmun The federal government was designed to protect encroachment on states Electoral college, House, and nature of the Senate States have been able to get lots of grants for themselves- 20% of all expenditures Including for many of the ones Rehnquist listed Strings! No “sacred province of state authority SAMTA simply has to meet the same wage and overtime rules as every other employer We should look to the political process itself to safeguard states

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority- IV Justice Powell, dissenting Joined by Burger, Rehnquist and O’Connor There was another dissent by Rehnquist not in the book He criticizes overturning it on the grounds of stare decisis He does not think the political process and federal structure will necessarily protect the rights of states He thinks that the majority is setting up the federal government as the sole judge of the limits of its own power He is further critical of ignoring the 10th Amendment

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority- V Justice O’Connor, dissenting Joined by Rehnquist and Powell O’Connor had been a state legislator in Arizona Powell had also been in local government in Virginia She says this violates the spirit of the 10th Amendment The means to the end must be legitimate She laments federal government expansion over the past few decades She proposes a balance between state autonomy and the means by which Congress acts Notice her last sentence- that she believes that this Court will in time again assume its constitutional responsibility We will find out next time, she was right

Next lecture We will finish the part on the cycles Pages 373-387