Federalism Historically, there’s been a shift from “dual federalism” to “cooperative federalism” 1. Dual federalism = Federal gov’t & states are co-equals, each sovereign. Constitutional powers of federal government are narrowly interpreted. 2. Cooperative federalism = Federal gov’t is supreme over states. Constitutional powers of federal gov’t are broadly interpreted.
Original jurisdiction in cases “affecting Ambassadors…” Appellate jurisdiction “in all the other cases … with such Exceptions … as the Congress shall make.”
Key Constitutional Provisions • Powers reserved to the states (Amendment X). • The Supremacy Clause (Art. VI). • The Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 18). • Commerce Clause (Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3).
McCulloch v. Maryland(1819) aka the ‘national bank case’ The Court upheld the (implied) power of Congress to create a national bank. The Court’s broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers.
McCulluch was the first major decision by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall about the relationship between the states and the national government. The Court denied the right of a state to tax the national bank. “the power to tax is the power to destroy” Supremacy clause – state can’t have the power to destroy a creation of Congress
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) • Both New York and New Jersey wanted the right to control shipping on the Hudson river • New York granted one shipping company a monopoly at the same time that the US licensed a ship to sail on the Hudson • Supreme Court decides that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution
State Resistance to Expanding Federal Power and the Civil War • Missouri Compromise of 1820: newly admitted states “slave” or “free”? • Dred Scott v. Sandford (U.S. 1857) • Civil War (1861-1865) • Civil War Amendments to Constitution (1865)
The New Deal The New Deal, FDR’s response to the Great Depression, was being struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court Held Congress exceeded the Constitutional powers of the national government FDR’s court packing threat Supreme Court abandons dual federalism, allowing further extensions of national power
Revival of Federalism? By the 1980s and 1990s, many Americans began to think that the national government was too big, too strong, and too distant to understand their concerns. Reagan Revolution / New Federalism proposed a return of powers to the states
Beginning in 1980’s, the Supreme Court once again played a role in the evolution of federalism. Several members of the Rehnquist Court supported limitations on Congressional power and greater state autonomy For example: Since 1989, the Court has been allowing states to introduce limitations on the right to an abortion.
Another attempt to revive federalism—the Commerce Clause Wickard v. Filburn (U.S. 1942) U.S. v. Lopez (U.S. 1995) U.S. v. Morrison (U.S. 2000) Gonzales v. Raich (U.S. 2005)
Gonzales v. Reich (2005) Facts: • Federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA) prohibits possession, distribution, and manufacturing of drugs like marijuana. • California Compassionate Use Act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal uses. • Monson grows & uses marijuana for medicinal purposes within scope of California law. • Federal government agents seize & destroy his plants. Claim: Monson seeks court order prohibiting enforcement of CSA to the extent that it prevents him from possession of marijuana for medical use. He argues that Commerce Clause does not authorize federal legislation in this area.
Class 4 STATUTORY INTERPRETATION • Overview • Muscarello v. United States
Overview of Statutory Interpretation • Common Law Attitude Toward Statutes • 10 Tools of Statutory Interpretation
Comparison of Civil Code and U.S. Statutory Interpretation • Civil Codes: • Written in general language. • Treated as containing germinating principles from which specific rules can be generated. • Cts fill gaps in code by analogy. • U.S. Statutes • Written in specific language. • Cts do not look for germinating principles there. • Cts do not fill gaps by analogy.
10 Tools for Statutory Interpretation • Wording of statute. • Statutory context—other sections of same statute, other statutes on same subject, title, headings, preamble. • Historical context—events and conditions that motivated the legislature to act. • Public policy announcements in other statutes and caselaw.
Interpretations of the statute by lower or collateral courts. • Legislative history—records created by the legislature during the course of enactment. • Canons of statutory construction. • Comparison to parallel statutes in other jurisdictions, focusing on the judicial interpretations & historical context. • Interpretations by administrative agencies charged with enforcing the statute. • Scholarly interpretations.
Wording of the Statute • The tension: • “Interpretation is the art of finding out … what [the drafter] intended to convey.” • Francis Liebre • “I don’t care what their intention was. I only want to know what the words mean.” • Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Plain meaning rule: Language of the statute controls “absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary.”
Hypothetical statute: “All stores shall be closed at 10 p.m.” What does this mean?
Legislative History • Committee reports. • Statements of individual legislators responsible for drafting the bill. • Statements on the floor of Congress (Congressional Record). • President’s signing message. • Testimony from committee hearings.
Canons of Statutory Construction • Ejusdem generis: “Of the same kind.” Where general words follow a specific list of items, read the general words to refer to similar items only. • Noscitur a sociis: A word “may be known by its associates.” Context helps to define a word.
Expressio unios est exclusio alterius:“The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others. • Rule of Lenity for Criminal Statutes: Criminal law should give clear notice to possible violators of what conduct is prohibited, so any ambiguity should be interpreted in favor of def. • Interpretation to Avoid Unconstitutionality
Interpretation by Administrative Agency Interpreting the Statute • Rationale: • Agency has expertise in matters within their control. • Court delegated intrepretation to the agency. • Controversy: How much deference is due? • Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (U.S. 1977): Court should defer to agency interpretation “unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong.”
Vertical Federalism: Concurrent Federal & State Lawmaking Powers • Incomplete Federal Legislative Intervention • Doctrine of Preemption: Presumption against preemption. State law is void if (i) federal law explicitly preempts it, or (ii) federal law implicitly preempts it by (1) direct conflict, or (2) occupying entire field.
Vertical Federalism (cont’d) Concurrent Federal & State Adjudicatory Powers a. Jurisdiction • State cts have jurisdiction over federal questions. • Federal cts handle state law claims in diversity cases. b. Removal from State to Federal Court c. Applicable Law • Fed ct handling state claim applies state substantive law & federal procedural law. • Vice-versa.
Horizontal Federalism: Multiple States with Adjudicatory Powers • “Long arm” personal jurisdiction. • Choice of law.
Effects of Separation of Powers & Federalism on Federal Cts • “Cases” & “Controversies” Limitation of Article III. • Implied private rights of action. • Anti-Injunction Act & Federal Ct Abstention. • State sovereign immunity.
Horizontal Federalism • Right to Travel • Crandall v. Nevada (U.S. 1867) • Shapiro v. Thompson (U.S. 1969) • Is it constitutional for state universities to charge higher tuitions to students coming from out of state?
2. Dormant Commerce Clause. E.g.: • Fencing out: NY prohibition on sale of out-of-state milk at prices lower than NY minimum price. • Fencing in: Prohibition on exports, such as fish. • Burden: NC law prohibiting advertising of apples according to the WA grading system.
Personal Jurisdiction • Personal jurisdiction = power of ct to force out-of-state party to respond to lawsuit. • Service of process is required to establish personal jurisdiction. • Minimum contacts: Constitutional due process requires that for ct to exercise personal jurisdiction party must have sufficient contacts with the state to make it reasonable (“fair play”) to require def to defend a lawsuit brought there. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington (U.S. 1945).
4. “Full faith and credit” requirement (U.S. Const., art. IV, § 1) 5. Extradition of Fugitives from Justice
Class 5: Common Law Methodology • Stare Decisis • Induction / Deduction • Analogy • Other Forms of Legal Reasoning
Stare Decisis See PPTs attached to Intro to U.S. Law Mindmap
J analyzes relevant precedents to determine their holdings New Case Holding in new case Application (deduction) to new case Holdings Broader principle Induction (synthesis)
Deduction = Reaching a Conclusion from the General to the Particular Major Premise: All men are mortal Minor Premise: Socrates is a man Conclusion: Socrates is mortal Mortals Men Socrates
Induction = Reaching a Conclusion from Particulars to General A is a swan and it is white B is a swan and it is white C is a swan and it is white Conclusion: All swans are white Swan A Swan B Swan C White
Math Example of Induction/Deduction What’s the next number in this series: 1,2,3,5,8,13,21,? Induction: Formulating the principle Deduction: Applying that principle
Why is Induction/Deduction Necessary in Common Law? No 2 cases exact same facts. So, deductive syllogism would be faulty: Major Premise: Precedent says (A + driving) = negligence. Minor Premise: Here, facts are (B + driving) Conclusion: Here, def is negligent. Negligence B + driving A + driving B + driving
Exercise 1 You can create a rule through induction, then use that rule as the major premise for deduction. First, induction: Read newspaper Reach under seat for coffee X Precedent 1: Driving + read newspaper = negligence. Precedent 2: Driving + reach under seat for coffee = negligence. Broader principle: Driving + __________________ = negligence.
Then deduction: Major premise: Driving + (doing another activity that takes attention away from road) = negligence Minor premise: Watching TV = (doing another activity that takes attention away from road). Conclusion: Driving + Watching TV = negligence.
Induction/Deduction Exercise Is Dana a Trespasser? (see handout)