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

2. This lecture We will cover the rest of the cycle material
Pages

3. 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

4. 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 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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”

10. 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

11. 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.?

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Next lecture
We will finish the part on the cycles
Pages