State sovereignty and horizontal federalism

State sovereignty and horizontal federalism

1. 
   Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
   
   1. 
      Facts: Indian tribe filed suit against Florida to compel negotiations under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The 11^th amendment Forbids suits against states by citizens of different states in federal court. Court developed that into a rule that forbids suits by private parties against state governments asking for government damages against the state because the state has violated a federal statute—plaintiffs can always get injunctions, but can't collect damages for past violations, and that grew to forbid suits by citizens of the same state for suing a state government.
      
   2. 
      Holding: overruled Union Gas Co. and held that: (1) Congress lacked authority under the Indian commerce clause to abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity, and (2) doctrine of Ex parte Young did not apply in light of intricate remedial provisions of IGRA. So states could refuse the suit.
      
2. 
   National League of Cities v. Usery
   
   1. 
      Holding: the Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to enforce the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA against the states in areas of traditional governmental functions
      
3. 
   Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
   
   1. 
      Holding: Overruled National League of Cities; holding the traditional governmental functions test as unworkable. States retain sovereign authority to the extent the Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and transferred them to the federal government.
      
4. 
   New York v. United States
   
   1. 
      Facts: Testing the validity of a statute that:
      
      1. 
         
         
      2. 
         Creates incentives for states to accept waste from others
         
      3. 
         Take title; states without waste sites will have been deemed to have taken title to all waste produced in the state
         
   2. 
      Holding: The third part of the statute is unconstitutional and impinges on state sovereignty.
      
   3. 
      Rationale: The statute directly compels the states to enact and enforce a federal regulatory operation.
      
5. 
   Printz v. United States
   
   1. 
      Issue: does anti-commandeering apply not just to state legislatures, but state officials?
      
   2. 
      Holding: Yes. The court struck down part of Brady Act that makes state officers conduct background checks as part of a federal regulatory regime.
      
6. 
   Federal government commandeering state resources to serve national ends
   
   1. 
      Pros:
      
      1. 
         Waste of resources for federal government to create parallel federal offices in states
         
   2. 
      Cons:
      
      1. 
         Might be a way for federal officials to take credit for doing something good while passing on the costs to states (raise taxes to pay for program)
         
      2. 
         Or if good, vote for the state officers, not giving Congress credit
         
      3. 
         Keeping clear lines of who is accountable for what
         
   3. 
      Coercing states through conditional spending is allowed (drinking age and highway funds; on-campus recruiting and DADT)
      
7. 
   Dormant Commerce Clause: states versus each other/horizontal federalism
   
   1. 
      The grant of power to Congress to regulate commerce among the states limited the ability of states to regulate or tax commerce in a manner that places an undue burden on state commerce
      
   2. 
      In some cases, this clause, which looks like all it does is grant Congress power, prohibits states from regulating commerce in certain ways, irrespective if Congress has acted on the power to regulate the same
      
   3. 
      Examples of cases:
      
      1. 
         Economic protectionism in one state hurting another
         
      2. 
         Tariffs on goods form out of state
         
      3. 
         Embargoes on out of state goods
         
   4. 
      Until Congress says something, it is preempting, and if it wants the opposite result, it can just pass something
      
   5. 
      Example: McCullough
      
      1. 
         MD has incentive to impose tax to transfer wealth out of state in state, winning political play in state bounds
         
      2. 
         Might not be good if other states impose retaliatory tax
         
   6. 
      Doctrine doesn't prohibit state regulations that impose negative externalities on other states; it only prohibits a subset of those--economic protectionism
      
      1. 
         Example of states imposing acceptable externality: NJ makes it desirable for factories to locate on downwind border to blow pollution into other states; the people who suffer the costs aren't represented, but benefits captured in state
         
   7. 
      City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
      
      1. 
         Courts struck down law prohibiting importation of out-of-state waste
         
      2. 
         Created doctrine: Only laws the court will strike down are those laws that the objective purpose is to transfer wealth from out-of-staters to in-staters
         
   8. 
      Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
      
      1. 
         On its face: nothing to do with protectionism: want consumers to know which apples are good and bad
         
      2. 
         But the other side argues that the law just forces apples grown under more stringent inspection regime is now forbidden from use in NC; have to re-grade all apples with less informative system that makes it impossible to distinguish the superior apples
         
      3. 
         Holding: State’s regulation requiring changing apple grading system is unconstitutional.
         
      4. 
         Rationale: practical effect of statute is to both burden out of state apple producers and discriminate against them.
         
   9. 
      Contrast with Maine v. Taylor
      
      1. 
         Holding: Court upholds the statute prohibiting the importation of live baitfish.
         
      2. 
         Rationale: Avoid having in-state fish killed off by parasites-statute really about protecting fish and food supply
         
   10. 
       How to decide these cases?
       
       1. 
          Is the state regulating interstate commerce?
          
       2. 
          Does the activity regulate evenhandedly with only “incidental” effects on interstate commerce, or does it discriminate against interstate commerce?
          
   11. 
       Complications in deciding these cases
       
       1. 
          Does the statute have a protectionist purpose?
          
          1. 
             Exception to dormant commerce clause when state government not acting as sovereign regulator, but as market participant
             
             1. 
                Example: state regulating which food it buys to serve in public school cafeterias
                
       2. 
          Subsidies
          
          1. 
             Using state tax dollars to subsidize an in-state industry is sometimes okay
             
       3. 
          Trucking
          
          1. 
             ???
             
   12. 
       Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Co.
       
       1. 
          Issue: Does an Iowa statute that prohibits the use of certain large trucks within the state unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce?
          
       2. 
          Holding: yes, it unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce.
          
       3. 
          Rationale: A state cannot constitutionally regulate its own parochial interests by requiring safe vehicles to detour around it.