*1 MARYLAND, Plaintiff, STATE OF Intervening al., Colorado et Plaintiffs, Labor, WIRTZ, Secretary of
W. Willard Department of Labor United States Lundquist, Administrator T.
Clarence Wage and Public Con- Hour De- United States tracts Division Labor, partment of Regional Jr., Hargadine, Direc-
William Region, Wage tor, Hour and Third Division, Contracts Public Labor, Department Defendants. A.
Civ. No.
United States District Court Maryland. D.
June *2 Congress of Labor Indus-
eration of and Organizations, trial amici curiae. Kaiser, Rosenberg Henry and Ronald C., Kaiser, Washington, Arken D. Van & on for Federation brief American County Municipal Employees, State, and AFL-CIO, amicus curiae.* t WINTER, Judge, Before Circui THOMSEN, Judge, Chief and NOR THROP, Judge. District WINTER, Judge: Circuit brought by This is an action the State Maryland, twenty-five in which other parties plain have intervened as tiff, asking the Court declare uncon stitutional the 1966 Amendments Mary- Burch, Atty. Gen. of (the Francis B. Fair Labor Standards Act1 “1966 land, Gold- and Franklin Alan M. Wilner Amendments”) they apply insofar as Maryland stein, Attys. employees Asst. Gen. plaintiff States, and to Atty. (Robert Sweeney, Deputy Gen. enjoin F. Act, enforcement of the as amend Loring Hawes, Maryland, Asst. ed, against E. Although the States. brief), Atty. Maryland, A. on Gen. 1966 Amendments extend the Act’s cover Phillips Carubbi, Rob- age J. Hawthorne enterprises, whether Attys. Norris, of Tex- ert W. Asst. Gen. private, engaged oper in the (Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen. C. schools, hospitals ation of and related Worth, Texas, Morgan, and Cecil A. Fort institutions, street, suburban or inter Tex., Independent for Ft. Worth School railways, urban trolley electric and local Hoiles, District, brief), on William M. carriers, and motorbus Ohio, Atty. Asst. Blaken- Gen. T.G. challenge briefs oral argument, ap ship, Atty. Oklahoma, No- plication Gen. of James schools, the Act ble, Atty. Mexico, plain- hospitals Gen. of New institutions; and related tiffs. this Court will limit its consideration ac cordingly. Donahue, Labor, Charles Sol. of Thom- Defendants have a motion filed to dis- Mary- Kenney, Atty., J. U. S. Dist. or, alternative, miss a motion for land, Miller, Deputy James M. Associate summary judgment. Plaintiffs 501., Dept, (Barefoot Sanders, of Labor summary judg- filed cross-motions Gen., Atty. Asst. U. S. Harland F. Leath- parties ment. The have entered ex- into ers, Dept, Gershuny, Attys., A. William stipulations regard tensive fact Justice, Margolin, Bessie Associate Maryland, Texas and Ohio. It 501., Dept, Labor, Nagle Robert E. agreed these data be taken as Fauver, Attys., Labor, Dept, William representative of the situation brief), on for defendants. plaintiff objections States. Some Woll, Mayer, relevancy J. Albert materiality Robert C. Law- have been Harris, rence raised, Gold and Thomas Wash- E. but the Court is satisfied ington, C.,D. on brief for American Fed- conclusions reached herein would not be * Only participated Law, in the hear- counsel who Public 80 Stat. amend ing and who filed briefs Fair merits Labor Standards Act of Appearances seq. inter- thus listed. for the 29 U.S.G.A. et § 201 vening At- entered their were torneys As- more General and one or Attorneys sistant General. goods production or in the merce the exclusion
affected
wage,
hourly
stipulated
commerce” a minimum
evidence.
206(a),
and one
one-half
U.S.C.A. §
regular hourly
week-
INTRODUCTION
times their
rate
maximum,
ly
specified
hours
The Fair Labor Standards
*3
(1).
their
207(a)
and
U.S.C.A.
§
in
seq.,
first enacted
201
C.A.
et
§
political
subdivisions were excluded
Congressional
find-
as a result of
1938
“Employer.”
29
of
the Act’s definition
Act,
ings,
2(a)
29 U.S.
in
of the
recited
§
203(d).
U.S.C.A. §
202,
C.A.
that:
§
original
constitutionality
of the
engaged
existence,
in industries
“the
States v.
in United
Act was sustained
production of
or
commerce
451,
100,
Darby,
61
85
S.Ct.
312 U.S.
goods
of labor condi-
stated,
(1941).
The Court
maintenance
tions detrimental
Congress
alia,
power of
inter
living nec-
of
the minimum standard
activi
to those
“extends
over commerce
gen-
efficiency,
essary
health,
and
interstate
affect
so
ties intrastate which
(1)
well-being
causes
eral
of workers
commerce or the exercise
instru-
commerce and the channels and
regulation of
to make
over it as
mentalities of commerce
be used
attain
appropriate
them
means
spread
perpetuate
such labor con-
and
end,
legitimate
exercise
ment of a
among the
of the sev-
ditions
workers
regu
granted
States;
(2)
eral
burdens
commerce
118,
Id.,
p.
late
commerce.”
interstate
goods
the free flow of
com-
2
S.Ct.,
61
459.
merce;
(3)
an unfair
constitutes
amended several
been
The Act has
commerce;
competition in
method of
times,3
Amendments
the 1966
until
but
burdening
(4)
disputes
leads to labor
brought
employees
within
were
obstructing
free
commerce and the
coverage.
its
goods
(5)
commerce;
flow of
concept was
“enterprise”
In 1961 the
orderly
interferes
and fair
with the
203(r),
75
29
introduced.
U.S.C.A. §
marketing
goods
in commerce.”
previ-
employees
In addition to
Stat.
pol-
It was
ously
personally
therefore declared
be the
covered —those
through
icy
Congress,
produc-
the exercise of
or in
commerce
among
goods
Act was
for commerce —the
rap-
several
“to correct and as
“the related activities
extended to cover
idly
practicable
oper-
through
performed
eliminate the con-
(either
unified
any person
above referred
in such indus-
control)
ditions
ation or common
curtailing
substantially
pur-
tries without
em-
persons
for a common business
ployment
earning power.”
29 U.S.
pose,
such activities
and includes all
accordingly
202(b).
C.A.
performed
§
in one or more estab-
whether
provided
pay
employers
corporate
must
those
lishments or
one or more
employees
“engaged
organizational
including
who were
com-
units
Subsequent
pointed
(1943)
337,
;
decisions have
out
Mitchell
constitutional, that the 1966 Amend plaintiff unconstitutionally impugn the consti attack ments state tutionality sovereignty.12 the 1966 Amendments a one “In suburban area of of our the House legislation. Senate versions of the Report southern school officials were Conference No. recently poverty September 6, Congres- funds were notified 2 U.S.C. qualified News, supra, available hire students who sional Administrative poverty family under the income level at It was with an extension of per happened coverage elementary hour. What this: $1.25 working secondary had in the cafe- The same school schools that H.R. 13712 was employed finally signed women had teria who been into law. enacted years fact, one was a widow—draw- —in point 11. Texas this “A words as follows: working cents hour an performance the func- Yet, school cafeteria. children were hand- tions of its picked given $1.25 an hour wash meaning in commerce within the the blackboards in same school. commerce clause of the constitution anyone “I do believe there sit- the United States.” ting today justify in this House who can Maryland argument type realizing, an also advances of situation as we all poverty must, that based tire Eleventh Amendment and there will be under the provision program hourly wage conflict asserted $1.25 level. If not, grave the Pair I of permits Labor Standards Act which then would have reserva- employee paid sincerity depth tion as to the ac- such wage principle cordance with the minimum or over- Member would have in the wage. provisions bring minimum time the Act to suit *6 brought by Chairman, if such suit is not “MR. Sec- PUCINSKI: Mr. will retary. gentleman yield? argu- 29 This § U.S.C.A. beyond yield scope gentle- “MR. ment is COLLIER: I this con- to the proceeding man from solidated and will Illinois. not be fur- may Chairman, “MR. considered this ther time. It be PUCINSKI: Mr. Iif correctly, if understand made ployee and when this some State em- amendment it finally attempts will establish a sue different fair labor to his em- stand- provision ployer. course, people argu- presently ard Of when the em- ployed valid, elementary is secondary ment advanced and if it is found and regard given schools and due will be universities. other provisions exactly “MR. enforcement contained in 29 COLLIER: That is cor- any inequities separability I do rect. not § leant U.S.C.A. lan- such guage talking today. as we have been 29 U.S.C.A. § about moving Maryland We are equity argue to achieve lohich and Texas also that treating everyone (em- hospitals means alike." their schools and are the “ul- phasis supplied) Congressional pur- Rec- timate consumers” commodities (May 1966), pp. ord out-of-state, 10820-10821. from chased that such com- The Senate “goods” Committee on Labor and modities are not as defined reported Public Welfare (i) and, bill favor- 29 U.S.C.A. § as a conse- ably, quence, with an amendment to exclude em- the Pair Labor Standards isAct ployees elementary secondary applicable argument and to them. This is schools, adopt- statutory construction, and this amendment was one not of con- Report 1487, August ed. significance, Senate No. stitutional beyond is also one 23, 1966, Congressional scope 2 U.S.C. proceeding. this (89th Congress— Administrative News It be should asserted in a suit in which Session, 1966), p. application particular Second 3002. The Sen- Act ato Committee, however, ate hospital brought ques- did not under- school or tion, is into public employees take to exclude development other so that after full coverage from facts, may under the Act. par- it if determined that coverage subsequently excluded enterprise re- statutory ticular meets ap- stored coverage. Conference Committee tests pointed to iron out differences between Filburn, conclude, I reasons hereafter (1942), farmer’s con a
stated, where contentions that all three of these sumption on his own against of wheat raised plaintiffs, be resolved should scope held the reach Cоn farm within to extent regulate gress commerce proceeding 1966 Amendments should consumption, and its constitutional, clause because that be declared valid farms, counterpart injunctive exerted relief be denied. should economic effect on interstate
substantial
United States
commerce. Accord:
COMMERCE POWER
Ohio,
L.Ed.2d
argue
Maryland
Texas
(1966)
do
constitute
of a State
activities
regulated
may
inquiry
un-
Thus,
proper
“commerce” which
is not limited
in Con-
der the exclusive
vested
activi-
to a consideration
whether
foreign
regulate
gress
public
operating
interstate
ties of the States
spe-
Maryland argues
higher
schools,
more
commerce.
or
schools of
education
cifically
opera-
that,
respect
hospitals,
with
as such.
are “commerce”
activity
schools,
proper
inquiry
tion of
the State’s
much
It
is
broader.
is
remove
three
attributes which
whether such activities
commerce
are
any legitimate
com-
though
definition of
affect
local in na-
even
e.,
activity
non-profit,
merce,
is
ture,
i.
of Con-
and hence within
purely governmental,
gress
is no
there
commerce.
non-governmental
system
compete
Maryland’s
claims
with or substitute
it.
purely governmen
non-profit,
schools
outset,
At the
it is well
note
competition
tal
with
and not
direct
arguments
these
are based
non-governmental
systems are not shib
premise
more
than the de
restrictive
what
is and what
boleths
determine
support.
cided cases will
United States
not commerce.
is not con
“Commerce”
Darby,
upholding
supra,
the constitu
activity
ain
conven
fined to “business”
tionality of the Fair Labor Standards
sense;
tional
non-business and
it includes
generally,
only
many
one
deci
activities,
private
non-profit
whether
sions which holds that
of Con
irrespective
governmental
in nature and
gress over
includes
compete
whether
that which in
is interstate
itself
by private enterprise.
be substituted for
commerce but
ac
also “extends
those
*7
Co.,
Cartridge
Powell v. United States
tivities
intrastate which so affect
inter
497,
755,
1017
94 L.Ed.
339
70
U.S.
S.Ct.
state cоmmerce or the
of the
McGaughy
(1950);
Lublin,
&
Mitchell v.
it,
over
as to make
207,
260,
Associates,
3
79
358 U.S.
regulation
appropriate
of them
means
(1959); United States v.
L.Ed.2d 243
legitimate
Id.,
attainment of
end.”
Ohio,
66,
9,
17 L.Ed.2d
385 U.S.
87 S.Ct.
p. 118,
312 U.S.
61
S.Ct. at
(1966);
R.
Lee Electric
8
Wirtz v.
E.
also,
Wrightwood
See
United States v.
1964);
(4
Company, 339
686
Cir.
F.2d
Dairy Co.,
110, 119,
315 U.S.
62 S.Ct.
(6
Owen,
Cir.
employees
spent
supplies
of the
million
for
$8
security
payment of
bene
for
social
by
system
equipment
school
preparing
checks
fits and
during
year
represented
the fiscal
goods
producing
beneficiaries were
purchases.
direct
Over 55%
holdings
prior
commerce, summarized
$576,000 spent
drugs, x-ray
of the
private
declaring
need
no
that “there
be
supplies
equipment
hospital
beds
present
parties
profit
to con
motive
University
Maryland Hospital
noted
stitute commerce.”
It will be
hospitals
and seven other state
out-
were
all of
in a case in which
this was said
purchases.
respect
of-state
With
Maryland
urged by
to render
the factors
hospitals
spent
seven other state
her activities
within
during
$875,000
the com-
on such items
present:
were
parable period,
parties
stipulat-
activity
governmental,
non-profit,
part” of such
ed that all or “the most
performed
private
and could not be
items
outside
were manufactured
enterprise.
Maryland.
stipu
The fact
is that under the
Ohio,
stipulated
typical
In
also
evi
lations before us there is abundant
plaintiff
all
there are 708
performance
dence
districts,
(stipulated to
school
of which
where certain
functions
districts)
typical
of the other sсhool
are
as amended
covered
purchased
supplies
$323,000 in
a total of
Amendments,
only en
the 1966
are not
year
Approximately
in the fiscal
gaging
commerce,
production
or in the
directly
purchases
were
these
50%
goods
engaging
six
from outside of the state. Ohio’s
activities,
nature,
local
which have
spent
state universities
million on
$9
A
substantial
effect on commerce.
specified
year,
supplies in that
certain
stipulations
brief
recital of some of the
purchased
of which
di-
were
42%
parties
between the
sufficient
to dem
rectly
out-of-state,
with an undeter-
onstrate.
portion
being
mined
of the remainder
manufactured
outside the state.
year
In the current
fiscal
an estimated
spent by
billion will be
$38.3
Texas,
originate
all text books
out-
local
educational
institutions
stipulated
state,
side the
and it
year
the United States.
In the fiscal
major portion”
drugs
“the
and hos-
spent
these same authorities
$3.9
pital equipment
purchased
is either
di-
operating public hospitals.
billion
Ex-
rectly from out of the state or is at least
penditures
magnitude
of this
are bound manufactured in other states.
following
13. Pertinent also are the
author
purposes);
moral
Brooks
v. United
*8
“commerce,”
ities which have held to be
States,
432,
345,
267 U.S.
45 S.Ct.
69
transporta
non-commercial
interstate
(1925)
(transportation
of
persons
chattels;
tion of
and
articles);
Edwards
Hill,
stolen
United States v.
People
California,
v.
160,
of State of
314
420,
U.S.
143,
248 U.S.
39 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
63
337
164,
(1941)
62 S.Ct.
pital supplies and
by both
for
transmission
part,
the nondiffu-
rials
interstate
because of
inevitable
agencies,
hospitals
includ-
manufacturing supplies.
state
For ex-
local
ing engineering
and
of
sion
ample,
plans
Maryland suppliers
and architectural
no
are
there
enlarge-
major
hospital
eighteen
for
construction and
of
cate-
for fourteen out
reports,
ment,
supplies
equipment.
and
medical
gories
research data
and
of school
claims,
and numerous
larger
and benefits
Ohio
such
Even
types
reports
very
Texas,
producers,
few
and records.
no
equip-
books,
producers,
text
science
intelligence”
“Ideas, wishes,
and
orders
equipment.
physical
ment
education
and
“subjects
commerce,”
Un
are
Western
Lenroot,
ion
v.
502-
Tel. Co.
hospitals
only
public
and
Not
do
schools
(1945),
L.Ed.
65 S.Ct.
414
89
sup-
large
give
flow of
rise
interstate
preparation
of written documents
having
plies
equipment,
a corre-
and
and other materials
out-of-state
spondingly
effect
inter-
substantial
transmission, as
as the
inter
well
actual
commerce, public
hos-
state
schools and
funds,
state transmission of
documents
directly engaged
pitals
in commerce
are
communications,
and other
are all activi
goods
production
for com-
and
Co.
ties in commerce. Beneficial Finance
merce
aid
educa-
virtue
federal
Wirtz,
(7
v.
F.2d
Wisconsin
346
340
health, involving
tion and
billions of dol-
System,
1965);
Cir.
Willmark Service
year
spent
lars.
each
Over
billion is
$4
Wirtz,
(8
1963),
v.
317
486 Cir.
Inc.
F.2d
grants,
in
goes
federal
which
billion
$2
den.,
cert.
375
secondary
elementary
public
Building
(1963);
125
L.Ed.2d
Public
granted
education,
di-
of which is
50%
Birmingham
Authority
City
v.
rectly
pro-
to local school
districts
1962);
(5
Goldberg,
F.2d 367
Cir.
grams requiring
communica-
extensive
Kroger Company,
F.2d
v.
Mitchell
regional
tions between local schools and
1957);
(8
935 Cir.
Finance Co.
Aetna
of the United
national
facilities
1957).
(1
Mitchell,
247 F.2d
Cir.
Office of Education.
the area
activities,
Thus,
from these
as well
services,
expenditures
of health
receipt
purchases and the
out-of-state
during
year
fiscal
to $5
amounted
either
shipments
are
which
billion,
while State and local
stipulated
inescapably
in
must be
expenditures amounted to
billion.
$4.9
stated,
from the
the conclu
ferred
facts
expendi-
total
Included
of federal
sion
that the
is inevitable
activities
tures,
are annual federal assistance
commerce,
constitute
states are “in”
for the
and en-
$260 million
construction
production
goods for
largement
hospitals
other health
substantially
commerce, al
affect
grants
facilities, annual
research
medical
Leaving
though local in
aside
nature.
million,
of over
health
$600
moment
sov
grants
support
million
$65
ereignty, I
activities
conclude that these
agencies,
operat-
and
ing
local
both
health
clearly
within the
programs for
costs
the control
commerce.
Additionally,
the Social
disease.
Se-
curity
during
Administration
fiscal
THE ENTERPRISE CONCEPT
pay
hospital
will
out
billion
$2.35
pass on
program,
authorities to
services under the Medicare
enterprise
constitutionality
hospitals the coun-
94%
Dairy,
try,
concept,
currently
Wirtz
Edisto Farms
private,
both
F.Supp.
(D.S.C.1965),
participate.
Gold
Another
billion will
$1
Supermarket, spent
berg
Shopworth
*9
Ed’s
hos-
direct
to
reimbursement
(W.D.La.1963),
pitals
F.Supp.
both
eligi-
physicians
to
for services
validity.
my
patients.
From
sustained its
exam
ble
programs create
These
authorities,
regular
pertinent
I am
par-
ination
interstate
funds to
flow of
adopting
in those
concluded that
in
reached
enter
the result
in accord with
prise
Congress
concept
the enter-
did not exercise
and conclude
decisions
regulate
to the limit its full
to
concept
in the Fair Labor
com
prise
embodied
merce,
application
of the enter
29 U.S.C.A.
because
Act
in
§
Standards
prise
constitutionally
upon
val-
is conditioned
(r), represents a
presence
Congress
employee directly
of some
power of
en
exercise of the
id
gaging
goods
commerce, producing
in
commerce.
goods
handling
commerce
in commerce.
reсited, prior
to 1961
I have
As
From the authorities
be conclud
applied
Fair Labor Standards
enterprise concept
ed that
could have
en
themselves
who
to those
upon
employee
been conditioned
some
en
production
gaged
or in
in commerce
gaging
activity “affecting
in local
com
By
provi
goods
for commerce.
merce” short of the actual
ac
Amendments,
all em
sions of the
tivity previously mentioned.16
enterprises whose ac
ployees of various
goods
to the movement
related
tivities
leading
point
One of the
authorities
engaged
including
in
commerce,
those
in
just
to the conclusions
stated is Na
using goods
distributing
selling,
tional Labor Relations Board v. Reliance
previously
be
in commerce
had
moved
Corp.,
Fuel
Oil
course,
subject
subject
Act,
came
(1963),
836
1196,
643,
engages
pital
in
B.,
64
in
administer-
S.Ct.
commerce
L. R.
322 U.S.
N.
carrying
(1944),
proposition
health
a federal
out
837 activity, only em- applied to and those been some 1966 Amendments my upheld extend, they are ployees validity has been which which, power reasoning I previous language that conclusions and validity clause ex- satisfied, under the sustains am enterprise is this is on Because it ists and that 1966 Amendments. par- court, most and in No aspect that the States constitutional. of the case court, validity should vigorously federal ticular no lower attack attempt adjudicate Amendments, to dis- that steadfastly is I am constrained fully. justiciable; follow all must cuss authorities these Supreme the rules set down most vociferous are the States Since governing process constitutional possible conjuring up “horribles” adjudication: them,17 it adjudication to of an adverse very foundation of “The outset, to define necessary, is Acts courts to of the federal declare presently be is what is—and what not— lies unconstitutional question Before me is fore us. duty those courts and Congress may prescribe min of whether properly decide cases and controversies wages for non-ex and overtime imum patent in before them. made This was ecutive, non-professional non-ad and exercising that the first here case private and employees of ministrative gravest most delicate —‘the in hospitals, related schools duty on to this Court called is singled out has stitutions. (US) perform.’ Marbury Madison proved, group which, experience has this 73, 2 L.Ed. Cranch subjected underpaid to un is often all Court, 74. This as is the case and has re reasоnable work schedules courts, jurisdiction to ‘has no quired paid a min its members be pronounce any statute, either of which, imum sum measured void, State or the United contemporary society, is standards of con- because with the irreconcilable wage a decent deemed except stitution, it is called longer compelled be in a to work hours adjudge legal rights litigants in period payment work without overtime actual controversies. In the exercise than, by standards, deemed those jurisdiction, of that it is bound proper. These made standards been rules, rigidly two ad- to which has applicable private em one, anticipate a hered : never ployees, sought alike. in ad- of constitutional law doctors, nurses, principals, to cover it; necessity deciding vance of the teachers, assistants, research or the like. other, a rule never to formulate Congress sought Nor has to cover the of constitutional law broader than governors, attorneys legislators, general, required by precise facts to which judges policemen, who, some of the * ** applied.’ it is to be Kindred assert, eventually could be covered to these rules is the rule that one upheld validity if we of the 1966 application whom of a statute con- Amendments. stitutional will not be heard to attack Our consideration of the ground constitutional the statute on the im- presented issue here pliedly cannot deal with might ap- also be taken as hypothetical projections by plying the States of persons to other or other situa- regulations yet to come. Our considera- might application tions in which * * * tion of the States’ contention that their unconstitutional. impaired, my conclu- Jackson, Barrows sion that the 1966 Amendments are valid 97 L.Ed. this Court constitutional, developed are limited to the various reasons for New 572, 583-584, See York v. (1946). 90 Oregon, (1946); significant incon United States v. Very is the rule. L.Ed.2d proposition it ‘would U.S. trovertible (1961). for this Court undesirable indeed *12 every situa conceivable consider directly fed I turn to the cases where might possibly arise tion which regulation eral Commerce compre complex application upheld, ap Clause has been even when Id., at legislation.’ U.S. 346 hensive activity. plied to an “essential” The page page 256, 73 S.Ct. principal which must authorities pronouncing delicate Sanitary be considered are District of Congress is not unconstitutional Chicago 405, States, 266 v. United U.S. hypo with exercised (1925); 176, 45 69 reference S.Ct. L.Ed. 352 (em imagined.” cases thus thetical University Board of of Il Trustees of eliminated) supplied;
phasis
footnote
48,
linois v. United
289
53
U.S.
17,
Raines, 362 U.S.
United States v.
509,
(1933);
S.Ct.
which
ties,
used
were
despite
of state sov-
the defense
merce
subjected
the Federal
could be
argu-
rejected
ereignty,
penalty
Safety Appliance
so that
cir-
ment that
is
prescribed
Act for its violation
sovereignty,
as is
cumscribed
state
could be
recovered
taxing power. It
said:
California.19
analogy of
“The
immunity
the constitutional
urged
were
activities
California
these
instrumentalities
“
***
subject
taxation,
to the
because
from federal
re-
which
operating
illuminating.
it
is
spondent
is said that as the state
relies,
pur-
profit, for the
the railroad
pose
immunity
implied
without
That
from the
facilitating
system
the commerce
nature
our federal
using
proceeds
port,
and is
the net
relationship
it
within
of state
operation
improvement
harbor
governments,
equally
national
and is
* * *
performing a
a restriction on taxation
either of
sovereign
capacity
function in its
Its
the instrumentalities of the other.
and for that reason cannot constitution-
ally
requires
nature
that it
so construed
subjected
provisions
as to
rea-
allow to each
Id.,
p. 183,
federal
act.”
297 U.S. at
scope
taxing power
sonable
* * *
for its
(later
unduly
423. Mr. Justice Stone
cur-
would be
Justice), speaking
Chief
for a unanimous
by extending
tailed if either
ac-
Court, specifically rejected
argu-
tivities
from the tax-
could withdraw
imposition
ment and sustained the
subjects
of the other
penalty, stating:
traditionally
taxation
within
it.
* * *
“
Hence
look to the ac-
we
* * *
unimportant
we think
tra-
tivities in which the states have
say whether
the state conducts its
ditionally engaged
marking the
‘sovereign’
railroad in its
‘private’ capacity.
or in its
boundary
the restriction
operating
That in
taxing power.
But
there is
acting
its railroad it is
within a
wpon
plenary
no such limitation
*16
reserved to the states cannot
doubt-
power
regulate
commerce. The
* * *
only question
ed.
we need
deny
power
state can no
mpre
if
consider is whether the exercise of
its exercise has been authorized
power,
capacity,
in whatever
must
Congress than
an
can
individual.”
be in
regulate
power
subordination to the
(emphasis supplied)
Id.,
pp.
at
184-
commerce,
interstate
which
p.
at
S.Ct.
424.
granted specifically
has been
to the
government.
sovereign
national
power
In
State California v. United
necessarily
supra,
the states is
an order
United States
grants
diminished to the extent of the
requiring
Maritime Commission
elimina-
power
to the federal
preferential
tion of
and unreasonable
* * *
in the Constitution.
practices,
In each
e.,
i.
excessive
time and
free
power
case the
non-compensatory charges
state is
services,
sub-
ordinate to against
constitutional exercise
held
was
enforceable
the State
interesting
suit,
It is
generally
that in an earlier
19.
into business
as a common car-
Sherman
rier,
simply
v. United
has constructed the Belt
(1930),
51 S.Ct.
ing
involv-
Line as an incident of its control of the
railroad,
prerogative.” Id.,
p.
same belt
Mr. Justice
harbor —a State
at
gone
p.
Holmes said: “California has not
at
41.
employment re-
control its
State
of State
thе Board
of California
lationships
railroad
on a state-owned
Francis-
for San
Harbor Commissioners
engaged
commerce.
in interstate
non-
its
defended
California
co Harbor.
(US) su-
ground
v. California
compliance
the order
with
State, al-
pra,
said that
this Court
issued
it was
under which
the Act
sovereign capacity
though acting in its
owners
application to
had no
Railroad, neces-
operating
this Belt
question of
piers. This
wharves
sarily
to the
so acted ‘in subordination
decided
statutory
was
construction
power
regulate interstate
contention,
against
with the
its
granted specifically to
which
been
adding:
has
government.’
“
the national
* * *
day to
in the
it
too late
page
page
424].
at
at
[56 S.Ct.
Congress
under
question
by engaging
‘California,
regulate such
Clause to
the Commerce
subjected
by rail,
itself
commerce
has
part
of interstate
an essential
power,
and is liable
foreign
in-
trade as the activities
Safety Appliance
a violation
au-
were here
strumentalities which
* *
Act,
*.’
are other carriers
regulated by the Com-
thorized to be
page
Id.,
at
297 U.S. at
S.Ct.
[56
mission,
the activities
whether
424],
page
principle
no less
That
per-
private
and instrumentalities
California, by
applicable
If
en-
here.
agencies.”
Id., 320
sons or of
by rail,
gaging in interstate commerce
p.
p.
at
at
subjects
the commerce
itself to
railway
the sub-
belt
which was
it
so that
can make
conform
ject
litigation
in United States v.
safety requirements,
to federal
it also
California, supra,
State of
was also
subjected
itself to that
so
subject
litigation
Cali-
can
its em-
Taylor, supra.
fornia
latter
In the
ployment relationships.”
Id., 353 U.S.
Railway
was
whether
p. 568,
applicable
Labor Act was
to the em-
ployer-employee relationship between the
A similar
was reached in Par
result
employees
State of
its
California and
Ry.
den v. Terminal
of Alabama State
operating
the railroad. Not-
Dept., supra,
Docks
where Alabama’s
withstanding
provided
that California
plea
sovereign immunity
re
right
had
no
bar-
jected
brought аgainst
suit
gain collectively
concerning
Employers’ Liability
the Federal
employment,
terms and conditions of
employee
of a railroad
it owned
which
Railway
ap-
Labor Act was held
operated.
proceeded
The decision
plicable
principle
on the
that a state
grounds
on the dual
that when
prohibit
rights
empowered
regulate commerce,
protect.
labor relations acts
necessarily
any portion
the States
lost
As in
cases,
the earlier
California as-
of their
that would stand
apply
it,
serted the
if held to
way,
and that Alabama waived its
*17
invalidly
sovereign
interfered with its
protection against
by
individual,
an
suit
immunity,
rejected
but
the Court
Amendment,
as embodied in the Eleventh
contention, saying:
by operating
ap
an
railroad
interstate
“Finally,
suggests
proximately twenty years
the State
that Con-
after enact
gress
power
has no
Employers’ Liability
ment
constitutional
of the Federal
‘sovereign right’
interfere with the
Act.20
of
agency
operated
20. Three decisions of United
Courts
which
state-owned dock
Appeals
worthy
produce
employment
in this area are
facilities
rec-
Feaster,
inspection by
note. United States v.
330 F.2d
ords for
a union.
State
In
(5
1964),
States,
Cir.
held that
the National
of Colorado v. United
219 F.2d
Board, acting
(10
1954),
Mediation
under
the Rail-
Cir.
it was held that
way
Act,
require
Inspection
Labor
could
the state
Colorado State Board of Stock
asserting
Ohio, supra, the
to federal
boundaries
In United States
regulation
Clause,
of Ohio
the Commerce
was whether
pen-
support
the
they
claim
result
was
to the United States
liable
Adjust-
Agricultural
advocate in New York
United
alties under the
growing
on
66 S.Ct.
ment Act of 1938
wheat
federally-
(1946),
L.Ed.
and other cases which
state-owned farms
imposed
excess
power
acreage
Specifi-
held
tax
have
allotments.
subject
grown
prison
cally,
to limitation.
It should be
the wheat was
on
part
program
noted
that in
New York
outset
farm as
of a
of individual
opinion
Court,
case
therapy
there was no
It
con-
and rehabilitation.
was
placed upon
farm;
indeed,
exclusively
reliance is
one of the
sumed
opinions
by only
concurred in
four
Ohio
it could neither
Constitution
“sold,
out,
given justices.
be
away.”
farmed
contracted
But
weakness of this au-
Ap-
thority
unanimity
The Sixth Circuit Court of
lies not in
lack
peals
growing
Court,
held that the
of wheat and of the
but rather
the fact that
consumption
crop by
the inmates
other decisions before and after New
any
unqualified
the institution
sub- York
could
establish
anal-
stantial effect on
commerce
ogy
taxing power
between the
and, hence,
inapplicable.
was
power
commerce
cannot
Par-
be made.
(1965).
judgment
on
frame
this
1966
is no
the skeletal
of
Amendments
to their
But,
validity
of
constitutional
is
decision
the
State of Oklahoma ex rel.
argu-
us, it,
Phillips
presented
Guy
Co.,
to
and the
v.
F. Atkinson
313
issues
impairment
508,
of
1050,
ments of unconstitutional
U.S.
61
1487
S.Ct.
85 L.Ed.
it,
sovereignty
(1941).
case,
gov
are
predicated
state
largely
that
the
I
that
planned
concluded
irrelevant.
have
flood certain
ernment
lands
belonging
and con-
the
stitutional,
valid
1966 Amendments are
The state
to Oklahoma.
enterprise
sought
injunction, arguing,
as
the
inter
is
an
Amendments,
alia,
project
planned
that there
of the 1961
as
would
the
impairment
unnecessarily,
the
is
of
no unconstitutional
take much land
without
sovereignty
plaintiff
serving
purpose
of
States.
the
of
dam.
impact of
Amendments
financial
the 1966
Court declared:
argument
ad-
be
on the
States is
constitutional
"Such matters raise not
dressed to
They
questions
policy.
issues but
As
Marshall
courts.
Justice
Chief
wisdom, need,
ef-
relate to the
Og-
authoritatively
stated
Gibbons v.
project.
particular
fectiveness of a
They
den,
(1824):
9 Wheat.
6 L.Ed.
questions
therefore
understood,
“If,
always
as has
been
*
* *
Congress not
the courts.
Congress, though lim
Nor is it
us to determine whether
specified objects,
plenary as
ited
resulting
commerce as
benefits
objects,
power
com
to those
particular
a
Congress
exercise
result
among
foreign nations, and
merce with
power out-
the commerce
States,
Con
vested in
the several
gress
undertaking.”
weigh the costs
absolutely
in a
as
as it would be
(emphasis
Id.,
pр.
supplied)
at
527-
having
single government,
in its con
p.
61 S.Ct. at
on
stitution
same restrictions
as are found
exercise
allegation
Tó
tax revenues
a further
United States.
the constitution
diminished be-
of Oklahoma would be
and the
Con
wisdom
discretion of
property
cause of loss of
taxes on
identity
gress,
people,
their
land,
seized
education
their con
which
influence
possess
might
hampered because certain school
be
election, are, in
stituents
at
land,
buildings,
would
on the condemned
many
instances,
this,
as in
elsewhere,
have
rebuilt
declaring war,
that,
example,
said:
re
sole restraints
lied, to
abuse.
secure them
its
possible
“The
on the tax
adverse effect
They are
which the
the restraints on
revenues
as a result
Oklahoma
people
solely,
rely
in all
must often
govern
the exercise
the federal
representative
governments.”
(em
ment
eminent domain
phasis supplied)
Id.,
p.
at
197.21
no
barrier to the
stating
prin-
specific
more
power.”
Id.,
Even
(emphasis supplied)
ciple
impact
financial
of the
p. 534,
1064.22
vitality
principle
Although
explicit,
21. The
announced
several
support
not been
time.
eroded
Heart
authorities discussed
the text
Motel,
Inc. v. United
Atlanta
the commerce
the rule that when
validity
L.Ed.2d
U.S.
is exercised
the test
Alliance,
(1964); Polish National
cost
exercise is
States.
N.L.R.B.,
643, 650,
supra,
Taylor,
v.
64 S.
Inc.
U.S.
In State of California v.
(1944);
exposed
payment
Ct.
State of
the State was
Guy
Phillips
higher wages
At
Oklahoma ex rel.
v.
F.
for state
arrived
Co.,
bargaining
61 S.
kinson
result
at as a
of collective
Sanitary
(1941);
prescribed by
Ct.
847 gov- I defendants’ mo conclude that ministrative divisions of a central summary judgment For should be ernment. reasons which re- were my Judge granted, by in view of the fact that viewed but Wisdom United by only W.D.La., part Manning, F.Supp. are shared States v. 215 conclusions by Judge Thomsen, (1963), disputed, Chief at all 272 not and are Judge Northrop, may present adopted a Tenth Amendment counsel was in 1791. declaring minimum To a form of decree characterize that Amendment as wage provisions Amend “truism” of the 1966 does not mean that in- it was deny lulling meaning, and constitutional and tended to devoid ments valid ing plaintiffs’ prayers injunctive acceptance re into States of a national government may, lief. which without further Constitution,
amendment
to the
take
Judge
away
THOMSEN,
substance,
(concurring
if
Chief
from the
States
part):
sovereignty
trappings,
of the
they
preserve.
which
The
intended to
agree
by
I
with the conclusion reached
explicit
Tenth
Amendment makes
Judge
injunction
Winter-—that
re-
federalism,
recognizes
principle of
quested by plaintiffs
denied—
should be
government
supremacy
of the federal
but for somewhat different
reasons and
respect
delegated
powers
with
to the
important
agree
with one
reservation.
I
it,
recognizes
re-
also
operation
of schools
hos-
sovereign powers.
tained
The
certain
pitals by the
their
several States and
sovereign powers
by
retained
the States
subdivisions affects interstate commerce
specified
are not
in the Tenth Amend-
degree,
to a substantial
or not
whether
provisions
or in
ment
other
operations
such
themselves
in-
constitute
Constitution;
they
are limited
terstate
and that use of the
scope
powers
dele-
thrust
“enterprise concept” does not itself ren-
gated
government.
to the federal
der unconstitutional
the 1966 Amend-
ments to the Fair Labor
Act.
Standards
regulate
com-
potential
prob-
Eleventh Amendment
govern-
delegated
merce
the federal
lems, suggested by
should
“plenary”
ment has been held to be
they may
considered as
arise
subse-
range by
very
has been accorded a
wide
quent
against
actions
the several States.
Supreme
Court.
cases in which
agree
But I cannot
that the
extent
the commerce
has
federal
essential
been discussed in relation to the Tenth
sovereign functions of the States is ab-
categories:
Amendment
fall
into two
unqualified, despite
solute and
the broad
being
regulation
those in which the
language
opinions
Judge
сited
challenged
applied
by party
to and
a
oth-
Winter.
subdivision,
political
er than a
or a
regulation
and those in which the
sovereign
When the thirteen
being
challenged
applied
to and
adopted
up
gave
the Constitution
political
State itself or
subdivision
only part
of their
of a State.
system
United States of America. The
e
category,
created
pendulum
Constitution
is a
th
first
was and
1
system;
swung away
federal
has
States are
ad-
from decisions which
supplies purchased
support
wheat and flour
revenues otherwise available to
place
grown
the market
rather
than
state activities.
prison
Bowles,
the
pra, price
farm.
In Case v.
su-
Dagenhart,
controls on
the sale of timber
Hammer v.
38
247 U.S.
(1918);
decreased school revenues so that serv-
L.Ed.
S.Ct.
62
1101
Schech
Poultry Corp.
ices would have to be reduced or school
ter
penalties
taxes increased. The
exacted
L.Ed.
supra,
Ohio,
(1935) ;
Co.,
in United States v.
and Unit-
v. Carter
Carter
Coal
California, supra,
ed
States v.
State of
represented
general
a diminution of
(1936)
.
power.
Since must
heed the
restricted
admonition
Gomillion
consistently
Supreme
Lightfoot,
regulatory power
held that
110:
L.Ed.2d
dealing
clause
control
“Particularly
under the commerce
un-
claims
*21
merely
Constitution,
affect
provisions
intrastate activities which
der broad
of the
interpretative
by
commerce.2
which derive content
process
exclusion,
it is
of inclusion and
regulation
involving
The cases
federal
imperative
generalizations,
based
or
the
of
States
activities
qualified
on and
concrete situa-
analyzed
have been
their subdivisions
gave
them,
tions
applied
rise to
must not be
Judge
opinion.
of
Winter’s
Some
disregard
of
of
out
context
competing
of
interests
them involved the
controlling facts.”
variant
States,3
treaty power,4 the
several
commerce,5
power
foreign
or the
over
prin-
question remains: Does the
The
opera
power.6
war
Others involved
ciple
federalism, implicit in the Con-
of
railroad,7
by a
a
a water
State of
originally drawn, and made
stitution as
explicit
dominion
front
terminal8 or the
Amendment,
pre-
Tenth
government has,
ex
federal
“to the
regulating,
vent
from
navigable
States,”
clusion of the
over
provided
Amend-
the 1966
manner
ments,
opin
States.9 The
waters
United
operation
schools
of
eases
ions in some of those
state
hospitals by
and their
the States
government
power
?
subdivisions
in broad and un
interstate commerce
indicating
qualified terms,
cases aris
that when
cite number of
The States
taxing power,
effect
power over inter
exercises its
subject
taxing
limi
power
welfare
needs
that the
state
fed
imposed by
principle of
the States need not even
considered.
tations
must,
argue
language
opinions
eralism,
similar limita
broad
however,
power.
apply
be read in the context of the
tions
they
taxing power
cases which
were rendered.
Limitations
recognized
none of those cases were the essential
taxing
been
when the
budgetary
unduly
functions of
interfere
would
seriously
governmental
States so
affected as
activities
implied
principle
from
the statute under consideration. We
“This
States.10
Darby,
100,
Bowles,
92,
2.
States
312
66 S.Ct.
United
v.
U.S.
6.
327 U.S.
Case v.
451,
(1941);
(1946).
438,
61 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
N.L.
85
609
L.Ed. 552
90
Laughlin
Corp.,
R. B. v. Jones &
Steel
California, 297
7.
v. State
United
615,
1,
301 U.S.
57 S.Ct.
with the between ments on the proposed imposes graduated and commerce the the States coverage employees.12 burden, of state financial which will necessitate Findings respect away with labor condi- diseases the com- municable munity require large in tions in industries is too obvious goods production com- or in the merce, for elaboration. original Fair included were Maryland approximately 14. In the 80% § Labor 202(a). see U.S.C.A. Standards secondary elementary and total number of school enrolled students are Maryland beds, publicly 13. In all schools. In and Ohio the com- Texas operated, parable figures approximately owned and facilities for tubercular care in the State constitute the total are 86% great respectively. and ma- 84% Maryland. jority A similar situation exists are other schools either law, parochial religiously in Texas. Texas dis- In Under affiliated. covery patient Maryland public higher tuberculosis can institutions hospital committed to until of the students education served 74% longer degree is no In disease communicable. enrolled credit. toward Texas hospital figures comparable But non-state beds tuber- for and were Ohio vitually patients respectively. cular are non-existent In and 77% 63% Maryland hospital and the few that are ex- available half the are beds were tremely expensive. Similarly, approxi- operated by hospitals located in State and mately true, governments. facilities for local as defend- It is 90% mentally mentally note, hospitals and retarded ants that these accounted disturbed Maryland provided by State, admissions, are for the total 15% and, undoubtedly, propor- figure much the role in' that ing reflects their treat- same applies Moreover, chronically long-term in other States. ill public hospital patients. it is the which bears the mental Tex- tubercular In providing hospital as, main burden of care the in- beds account for al- for digent. Texas, example, In for most of most total number of half beds people hospitals, in State mental institutions all Texas about charity charity patients. are or near of the admissions. State local 25% hospitals only provided government hospitals Texas tubercular in Ohio 2,900 paid patients hospital nine out of almost half the total number complete hospital cost their beds in care the State accounted about necessity keeping men- admissions. 15% tally disturbed and those ill com- affected which are curtailment some or a increased taxes either arrange by Amendments, require being work rendered now of the services standard 40-hour than the political ments subdivisions. and their the States college school, Public operate of work week. out must Most of the States generally university personnel, re budgetary app who provided funds current lengthy vacations, work must many often instances ceive ropriations,15 and in during per longer subdivisions, hours than 40 week political no responsible year. part The statute taxing school districts, some tably their school provi some consideration makes and would maximum constitutional employees regard teachers, for the spent sion in this to curtail the amounts require hospitals, round-the-clock like, whose reduce textbooks comfortably a 40- served, do not fit people un ments into unless and number practice hour A common work week.16 til constitution is amended. the State give and other State these been say Nevertheless, I cannot time, compensatory wage provisions interfere so minimum arrange budgetary make various other unduly performance with the States’ jobs keep in fair balance State ments sovereign indispensable functions their If the character. most diverse provisions unconstitu- those as to make provisions Amend of the 1966 overtime Judge true, as It is of course tional. arrange many valid, of those ments are Northrop points out, that the minimum longer possible. The no ments budg- wage provisions with the interfere organiza seriously hamper Act will etary But function of the States. budgetary functions tional and against weighed must be interference by forcing em to favor them government, of the federal interest ployees hospitals and schools of their representing people all the programs over other such as welfare seeing people are that all the *24 enforcement, re law unless the States wage. paid appropriate minimum ap arrange their entire civil service problems by presented the Serious are employees propriate sums for additional possible application work of the Act to by not covered the Act. by other done inmates correctional and above, I am satis- For reasons stated part institutions as education their drawn, and fied must be that that a line agree I programs, rehabilitation respect em- if not all state to some with the Solicitor of Labor these ployees by covered Amendments by regulations can best be handled requirements of the Act the overtime by basis, or on a not ease case and do go probably beyond permissible justify sweeping injunction. or- limits. interference with provisions present ganizational budgetary overtime functions of problem. more serious the mini- Unlike On States has been noted. wage provisions, pro- mum Congress stated, the overtime hand, has not paid visions hearings not limited to the lowest nor the neither the committee employees. Many functions, inelud- stipulated show, facts in this case what Thus, represents annually. though Texas to the Court Fort Even larger order to meet the standards of dis- District is one of the Worth State, 1,- the Fair Labor Standards Act the ex- are over tricts there penditures of Independent the Texas Youth Council School Districts 300 other by $3,000,000 will proportion- be increased over an- cost will be increased whose ; nually Department ately of Mental Health and who also must find additional Mental Many Retardation will need an ad- dis- revenue. of these sources of $7,500,000 annually; ditional cost of reached their constitutional tricts have Higher property the Institutions of Education will value tax rate limit as well as go up $3,250,000 annually limitations. Independent Fort District Worth School (j) (1966 16. 29 Cum. § 207 U.S.C.A. will need 1971 to find additional tax Supp.). approximately $575,- revenue sources for sovereign- Clause and state on the Commerce effect interstate if recognized ty practices our Constitution. of the several overtime instance each have. The issue Judge Winter concludes that the unduly regulation particular whether the Clause under the Commerce indispensa or more interferes with one Congressional pre- no has boundaries and sovereign of the State. functions ble emption supreme, mat- this field is question whether This indicates that the tering destroy would con- that it provi application of the overtime recognized sovereignty stitutionally employees statute to state sions put simply, the states. To he holds goes beyond permissible limits should federalism, beginning that from the particular be decided in the context Constitution, in our embodied existed cases, of the interfer when the extent the will of than rather indispensable func with an ence gone people. ofwill No case against effect, weighed can be by history supported It is far. neither prac any, if which the overtime State’s nor structure the Constitution. I commerce.17 tices have Judge concurring opinion, In his injunction sweeping that a conclude recognizes im- Thomsen there proper. this time would plicit within of federalism limita- embodied the Constitution a denial of relief in this case should tion on the under the right prejudice without However, Commerce Clause. he feels political subdi- several States and their wage provisions the minimum challenge provi- visions to the overtime Act as affect the states do not the transgress applicable sions of the imposed limitation political and their the States subdi- Congress. Constitution But hе ex- visions, presenting spe- in future cases presses serious doubts as to the consti- cific situations. tutionality provision of the overtime the Act as it affects the states. Never- Judge (dissent- NORTHROP, District theless he concludes that is not ing). yet ripe adjudication. it, As to he compelled I am from the dissent Department would wait La- until the by Judge conclusions reached Winter promulgates applies regula- bor Judge Thomsen that this Act is tions to the states and decide constitu- unconstitutional. tionality case-by-ease on a *25 basis. majority recognizes Although agree Judge that this is I with Thom- involving impression analysis a a first pertinent case sen’s of the cases and Congress’ power reasoning conflict between under some of his as to the effect hearing 17. theAt case this the Solicitor Tr. 193. The Solicitor concluded “that argued appropriate place Labor for all of defendants. the this is not the and injunctions He was asked from the Bench whether for blanket case or orders ap- and where a line should be drawn. With- on a blanket far basis so as the conceding any plication out that line should be of this rule to schools hos- ease, pitals drawn in Instead, this and without with- are concerned. it would drawing position appropriate from his that the seem most if such a line new plenary power government fashioned, of the federal conceived and it were be, if should applies fashioning concept to the that the individuals, by Court, States as well as to the So- of it should not be for this “* * * suggested: Supreme any proceed- licitor have we in the later variety may ings, suggested perhaps, such a of situations it or I as path try before, not be the of wisdom to several times it should done actually up cover] issue blanket rule the [to as cases come future the variety get of different demon- situations and action is taken where we a can [by stipulations respect exposure stated full of all of the different facts Maryland, Texas, may pre- to] Ohio which on issues well be facets multiplicity pp. can be assumed to exist in a at future time.” Tr. sented throughout fifty of cases States.” 205. whole, states, I cannot mittee of did not alert on the of the amendment states, Congressional or agree Unless constitute a with his conclusions. finding, give purpose ap- as or this Act a Department emasculates of Labor plied majority way this or would no states will be there Judge opin- wish. constitu- Winter’s [Note to avoid the other court some question posed ion.] herein. tional brings question this This case then into confronta- us is whether before Congressional powers under the under concept an un- constitutes Commerce Clause with the Commerce Clause “performance infringement upon dual em- or federalism as due govern- Constitution, bodied in our ar- function as a is of [the state’s] recognizes ticulated in the Tenth Constitution Amendment.
ment which the sovereign.” of this Act must be meas- effect against precisely ured the Constitution quotation from Chief Justice This is impact be softened its cannot opinion Stone’s York v. New regulation department of na- what might government promulgate in tional limits on the reference application. Congress. taxing Although power of it on the state What then its effect recognized under government ? broader, Commerce Clause language must limits. The have some forcing, By suggests such a Chief Justice Stone liability criminal threat civil limitation. penalties, legislature or the re- the state sponsible political subdivision sep- We are concerned here with the state powers aration of between national (an impossibility state our Con- 1. established increase taxes political stitution. with- This federalism subdivisions some throughout amendment); carefully preserved has been out state constitutional history by courts, our exhort- on hand or the the one 2. calibre of to curtail the extent and legislatures state on other to restrain public hospitals and edu- services trespass their actions so as not cational and related institutions rights, responsibilities, state; and duties of other. indispensable to reduce services governmental to meet activities agree I political cannot is a budgets activities favored those importune for the state to Congress; the United Congress not to raise the salaries forcing entering employees, thus the state new to refrain from fields legislature people pay activity governmental to tax its those necessitated employees. transgression changing This is a direct social conditions. *26 concept federalism, on the which must allocation of the state’s revenue The among government be determined the courts. most The case activities is the perfect example government, before us important is a of the function of state wisdom of Constitutional than and calibre rather for it determines the extent Congressional supply. federalism. can The amend- of service which a state through ment, governments provide which the states are sub- must serv- jected Act, Fair The state Labor out of tax funds. Standards ices current government political was enacted subdivisions without to the states and its notice they might particularly so that needs sensitive heard without any thought being given ability pay people effect of their governmental Surely indispensable functions them. statement Congressman, one that must be furnished. even the com- government therefore, compelling state budget is, under con ernment ac- The controlling operating and tion and study executive both the stant government gov legislative little or no state knowl- of the state’s branches edge requirements appropria only of the of its citizens does the ernment. Not ability highest citizens the financial pay those considera demand the bill legislature inis ses the bill. while it tion of the sion, requires of the most but it also theory Congress, of this The in attention executive governments manipulate can state legislative between sess committees
terim by increasing come the state functions to ions.* “enterprise” concept or remov- under the ing exemptions em- for classes state only avail- sо much revenue There is state, ployees at will without notice to money able. The allocation of this wise expense This and all at the of the state. up-to-the-minute demands this constant magni- intrusion of first Act is thus an knowledge governmen- local of state and govern- functioning of state tude into intimately tal officials concerned with limit, now, potentially ment without requirements priorities to allotted for the formula and carries with it the among welfare, education, health, law concept of federalism. destruction of the enforcement, urban, pollution, demanding governmental functions, carefully each Congress has heretofore importance. substantial states’ interjecting the national avoided Congressional delegations neither have governmental func- local into state or time, knowledge, nor nor is their Although grants-in-aid and match- tions. function effect, involved in the vital might become these funds policy. cry details state fiscal far have a contractual basis—a Congressional mandatory direction. This Perhaps all of the above can be ex- indicates a of itself reluctance in and pressed graphically more a recent prin- recognition of the Constitutional story Evening (Balti- news Sun ciple of federalism. more) undoubtedly repeated hundreds times across the nation: nurturing of the The careful fruition since come to federalism has budget again “It is in Howard time ** increasing initiative War II in the County World *. problems meeting new states particularly “What worries the com- changes brought great social about budget missioners is that the school “Metro- The momentous our nation. largest county expenditure [the politan creation has caused the Problem” government] gone up on an aver- forms of local new age per year of 22 each cent while many areas. The wisdom of the affected goes only up taxable income clearly of local administration has been per per cent and assessments seeing many more demonstrated. We arе governmental cent.” being undertaken activities Evening (Baltimore), April Sun governments on the federal and state 6, 1967. recognized partnership directed basis impact mandatory light solving problems. In of a allocation at our internal voluntary by Congress examples move- state-collected revenues of the above among govern- indispensable partner- ment and state toward national readily compulsion, ship, mental it would services is thus demon- rather than gov- tragic point It in his- strated. national amounts to the indeed be *27 * put example, reports prodigious For time effort consider of the amount of gov- supply Maryland Assembly’s General officials Committee forth documents on Taxation and Fiscal services. These Affairs from 1955 ernmental date, Maryland Legislative may Coun- found in the Archives year Report cil’s of State Governments. countless Council reflecting such documents tory expand and broaden BARBARA, COUNTY OF SANTA government the state of the federal Plaintiff, governments nec- of their the exercise essary governmental under the functions America, Defendant UNITED STATES of guise a Clause” “Commerce Plaintiff, Third-Party by any poiint never heretofore reached delayed To now the decision. substitute DISTRICT, ponderous WATER action of a remote central GOLETA COUNTY Third-Party Defendant. government atrophy and stifle this would progress. Civ. No. 65-267-IH. Democracy Toequeville in Alexis de his States District in America said it in this manner: D. California. C. “ * ** I cannot that a conceive June prosper nation can live and without powerful govern a centralization opinion
ment. But I am of
a centralized administration is fit
to enervate it nations
exists, incessantly diminishing their spirit. Although
local such an admin bring together given
istration can at a
moment, given point, on a all the dis
posable people, resources of a in
jures the renewal of those resources. victory
It insure a the hour strife, gradually but relaxes the strength. may help
sinews of It ad
mirably greatness the transient of a man, prosperity durable I, pp. (Bradley nation.” Vol. 86-87 ed., York, 1946). New
Thus, power, the limitation delegated
which has been to the federal
government including reg- — among ulate the states —and
which deals with the internal affairs of nation, is reached when
exercises so as to interfere
unduly in some manner with the state’s
performance indispensable govern- of an activity.
mental applied The Act as public schools, hospitals, and
related institutions is unconstitutional infringement upon
because it is an undue performance indispensable of an governmental (its
fundamental function taxing budgetary function) state, recognizes which the Constitution sovereign. proof of the wisdom of the federal implicit name our “United States”. —the It succinctly.
cannot be more said