Module 9 - Limits on Congressional Powers

What are the structural limits on what Congress is allowed to do?

1. Separation of Powers: Each branch should stay in their lane. Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, and the Judiciary interprets them.

2. Federalism: The federal government cannot "commandeer" (hijack) state governments to pass or enforce laws. States have immunity from being sued without their consent.

What’s this module in a nutshell?

Congress CANNOT:

1. hand off major lawmaking decisions without a clear standard

2. supervise/micromanage agencies outside formal lawmaking

3. MANDATE state officials to carry out federal law

4. broadly allow private suits against states

Congress provides the original law and has an agency implement it. Can Congress change the agency’s implementation by simply asking them to?

No. Congress must pass new laws.

Nondelegation Doctrine: Rule

Article I, Section 1 vests “all legislative powers” in Congress.

What can Congress delegate to agencies?

Example:

Congress passes a law stating: “Construction sites must be reasonably safe.”

Agency’s Job:

Rulemaking: All construction workers must wear hard hats.

Investigation: Send inspectors to make sure workers are wearing hard hats.

Adjudication: Agency acts like a court and issues fines against noncompliant companies.

When may Congress delegate to agencies?

Only if Congress lays down “by legislative act an intelligible principle” the agency must follow

How specific does “an intelligible principle” have to be? For example, suppose Congress is passing environmental laws to prevent environmental harm.

Congress can instruct an agency to regulate a harm without setting precise numerical limits. The agency uses its technical expertise to define exactly what constitutes "too much" harm.

Congress passes a law that completely lacks an intelligible principle.

1. Who determines whether the law lacked an “intelligible purpose?”

2. Can an agency limit its own power or write its own strict rules to fix Congress’s law?

1. Courts do. Based entirely on the text Congress wrote.

2. No. The law Congress passed was unconstitutional.

Can Congress delegate to agencies outside the Executive Branch?

Yes, if guided by statutory goals. For example, Congress delegating to the U.S. Sentencing Commission for creating consistent sentencing guidelines within federal criminal law.

FACTS:

Clean Air Act requires the Administrator of the EPA to implement national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants at levels “requisite to protect the public health.”

It also instructs the EPA to set these standards at a level “allowing an adequate margin of safety requisite to protect the public health.”

Truckers challenged the statute. They argued that it delegated legislative power from Congress to the agency without providing sufficient standards or a determinate criterion for setting the air quality levels, and that the EPA ignored compliance costs.

1. What is this case’s name?

2. What is the Issue?

3. What is the Holding?

1. Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.

2. Did the Clean Air Act unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the Environmental Protection agency by failing to provide an adequate “intelligible principle” under Article I?

3. The statute (With the term “requisite” means sufficient) provided a constitutionally sufficient intelligible principle. The EPA may not consider implementation costs.

An agency claims power over issues of “vast political or economic significance.”

1. What needs to happen?

2. What are the critiques of this?

1. The agency needs clear congressional authorization.

2. What’s considered “significant”? It also forces Congress to anticipate future problems.

Legislative Veto: Rule

Any congressional action that is legislative in character and effect requires:

1. Bicameralism: Passage by House and Senate

2. Presented to the President (Article I, Section 7)

Exception: One House may act alone under certain conditions.

When may a single House act alone when a congressional action is legislative?

IF:

1. The House Initiates Impeachment (e.g. House independently impeached Clinton. Senate had no say in this initial step.)

2. The Senate Tries Impeachment (The House brings charges in Step 1. The Senate takes over exclusively to hold the trial and decide whether to convict and remove Clinton from office.)

3. The Senate Approves Appointments (President nominates Supreme Court justices. The Senate has the power to confirm or reject.)

4. The Senate Ratifies Treaties (The President negotiates with international countries. If two-thirds of the Senate ratifies the agreement, it becomes law.)

What is considered “legislative in character and effect?”

Altering the legal rights, duties, or relations of people outside Congress

Can efficiency and convenience cannot save an unconstitutional procedure?

No

Argue how formalists and functionalists see Legislative Veto.

Formalists: Defend strict procedure.

Functionalists: The veto is a useful check on agencies.

FACTS:

Kenya citizen, Chadha, holding a British passport, lawfully entered the USA on a student visa that subsequently expired.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against him. Chadha conceded deportability but applied for a suspension of deportation under § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

An immigration judge granted the suspension after finding that Chadha met statutory requirements, including continuous residence and showing "extreme hardship." Pursuant to § 244(c)(2), a report of the suspension was sent to Congress.

Later, the House of Representatives passed a resolution vetoing the Attorney General's determination to suspend Chadha's deportation, without submitting the resolution to the Senate or presenting it to the President. Chadha then challenged the resulting deportation order on constitutional grounds.

1. What is this case’s name?

2. What is the Issue?

3. What is the Holding?

1. INS v. Chadha

2. Is it a violation of Constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment for a single House to veto provision 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act?

3. Yes. The veto was legislative. Thus, it violates the constitutional mandates of bicameralism and presentment.

What is the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine in layman’s terms?

The federal government cannot hijack statesto enforce federal laws or regulations against their will.

Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Rule

Congress may regulate INDIVIDUALS directly.

Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Limits on the Rule

Congress may NOT:

1. order state legislatures to enact laws

2. command state or local executive officers to administer or enforce federal programs

3. stop state legislatures from authorizing or repealing their own laws

Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: What IS Allowed

1. Valid preemption (regulating private actors directly under an enumerated power)

2. Even-handed laws covering activity by both states and private parties (such as data protection)

3. Requiring state courts to enforce federal law

4. Spending incentives (e.g. Congress tells CA: Up your drinking age to 21 or you lose 5% of your federal highway construction funds).

Can Congress command a state's police (executive branch) or lawmakers (legislative branch)?

No

FACTS:

Congress's passes a law requiring a national background check for gun purchases. They required local police chiefs and county sheriffs to do the background checks.

1. What is this case’s name?

2. What is the Issue?

3. What is the Holding?

1. Printz v. United States

2. Do interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that command state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers violate the U.S. Constitution?

3. A central government cannot act through the states.
   The provisions of the Brady Act compelling state and local law enforcement officers to perform background checks and related tasks are unconstitutional because they violate the anti-commandeering principle. Thus, this law is improper under the “Necessary and Proper” clause.

Hypo 1: Congress passes the Federal Clean Roads Act. The law requires all state highway patrol officers to pull over commercial trucks and inspect them for compliance with federal emissions standards during their regular shifts. The officers must then submit compliance reports to the federal Environmental Protection Agency. This is unconstitutional under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Congress is illegally conscripting state executive officers to administer and enforce a federal regulatory program.

Hypo 2: Congress passes the Federal Trucking Liability Act. The law gives private citizens the right to sue commercial trucking companies for violating federal emissions standards. A citizen files one of these federal lawsuits in a state trial court. The state judge must hear the case and apply the federal statute.This is constitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution explicitly binds state judges to enforce federal law when presiding over legal disputes.

Label each hypo as either constitutional or unconstitutional.

1. Unconstitutional Commandeering (Executive Branch)

2. Constitutional Command (Judicial Branch)

In Printz v. United States, does it matter that the duty was temporary and modest?

No. Even temporary duties imposed on state officers by the federal government violate the anti-commandeering principle, regardless of their modesty.

FACTS:

State sought to legalize sports gambling by repealing existing prohibitions. Sports leagues sued NJ arguing that it violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA).

PASPA made it unlawful for a State or its subdivisions "to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact" any sports gambling scheme.

New Jersey defended its actions by arguing that PASPA unconstitutionally infringed upon its sovereign authority and violated the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.

1. What is this case’s name?

2. What is the Issue?

3. What is the Holding?

1. Murphy v. NCAA

2. Does the part of PASPA that prohibits States from authorizing or licensing sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule under the 10th Amendment?

3. The provision of PASPA prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling violates the anti-commandeering rule and is unconstitutional. Stopping a state rom passing new laws is equivalent to forcing them to passing new laws.

What does the 11th Amendment stand for?

States possess sovereign immunity and cannot be sued by private citizens in federal or state court.

When can Congress override state immunity? (Abrogation rule)

2 elements:

1. Congress states its intent unequivocally (e.g. Congressional statute explicitly states that employees may seek monetary damages against state governments for violations" if employment gender discrimination were to occur.) AND

2. Congress acts under a valid power. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment qualifies (which gives Congress the power to enforce the other sections of the amendment through appropriate legislation), but Article I powers, including commerce, do not.

When can Plaintiffs bypass state immunity?

1. State consents to litigation (e.g. passing specific legislation).

2. Congressional abrogation (separate 2 part test; separate flashcard).

3. Name the state official as the Defendant for prospective injunctive relief to stop an ongoing violation, rather than retroactive monetary damages (not the state).

4. Be a neighboring state or the federal government.

5. Be a local government. (city, county, school board)

FACTS:

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), enacted by Congress under the Indian Commerce Clause, allowed Indian tribes to conduct class III gaming operations if done in conformance with a Tribal–State compact.

The statute required States to negotiate in good faith with tribes toward forming a compact and authorized tribes to bring suits in federal court against a State to compel performance of that duty.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida sued the State of Florida and its Governor, alleging that the State refused to negotiate in good faith for a gaming compact. Florida moved to dismiss the suit, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

1. What is this case’s name?

2. What is the Issue?

3. What is the Holding?

1. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida

2. Does Congress have authority under Article I (specifically the Indian Commerce Clause) to override the States' sovereign immunity from private suits brought in federal court?

3. No. The Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity, and therefore Congress cannot authorize private suits by tribes against nonconsenting States in federal court.

Seminole Tribe held that private parties cannot sue States in federal court under Article I (the commerce clause). Can private parties sue States in state courts under the Commerce Clause?

No. Article I also cannot subject nonconsenting states to private damages suits in their own state courts.

FACTS:

A group of probation officers filed a lawsuit against their employer, the State of Maine, in a Maine state court. They alleged that the State had violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and sought monetary compensation and liquidated damages.

1. What is this case’s name?

2. What is the Issue?

3. What is the Holding?

1. Alden v. Maine

2. Does Congress have the authority under Article I of the Constitution to subject nonconsenting States to private suits for damages in STATE courts?

3. No. Congress cannot use its Article I powers to authorize private suits for damages against nonconsenting States in state courts.

Why are states immune from lawsuits without consent?

The founding fathers saw immunity from private suits as central to state dignity, and such suits threaten state finances.

1. Does State Immunity also bar private complaints against states in federal administrative proceedings?

2. Why or why not?

1. Yes. State sovereign immunity extends beyond traditional courtrooms to include tribunals within federal executive agencies.

2. A private citizen cannot bypass a state's immunity by filing a complaint against a nonconsenting state with a federal administrative agency if that agency proceeding functions exactly like a civil lawsuit.
   The agency does not exercise judicial power, but the proceeding “walks, talks, and squawks very much like a lawsuit” and offends state dignity.

FACTS:

South Carolina Maritime Services, Inc. repeatedly asked the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA), an arm of the State of South Carolina, for permission to ship a cruise ship at its port facilities in Charleston. The SCSPA denied the requests based on its policy against berthing vessels whose primary purpose was gambling. Maritime Services then filed a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), contending that the SCSPA's refusal violated the Shipping Act of 1984. The SCSPA moved to dismiss the administrative proceeding, arguing that as an arm of the State, it was entitled to sovereign immunity from a private party's suit before the agency.

1. What is this case’s name?

2. What is the Issue?

3. What is the Holding?

1. Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002)

2. Does state sovereign immunity preclude the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's administrative complaint alleging that a state-run port violated the Shipping Act of 1984?

3. State sovereign immunity bars the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting state-run port.

Can the federal government sue the States?

Yes

What subject areas can private parties sue States for? Why so?

Bankruptcy, war powers, and federal eminent domain.

By joining the Union, states surrendered immunity in certain areas.

Can Congress delegate federal eminent domain to private parties?

The federal government can take property for public use.

Congress can legally delegate this power to private entities for federal projects (e.g. building interstate pipelines).

Once the private company is armed with this federal delegated power, the private company steps into the shoes of the federal government and can sue a state in court to legally seize state-owned property.

The state cannot invoke sovereign immunity to block the private company from taking the land.

FACTS:

PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC obtained a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to build an interstate natural gas pipeline. To acquire the necessary rights-of-way across various properties, including land owned or claimed by the State of New Jersey, PennEast filed condemnation actions in federal court. New Jersey moved to dismiss the actions, arguing that state sovereign immunity barred private parties from suing the State in condemnation proceedings.

1. What is this case’s name?

2. What is the Issue?

3. What is the Holding?

1. PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey

2. Does the Natural Gas Act, which delegates the federal eminent domain power to private certificate holders, permit those private parties to initiate condemnation proceedings against nonconsenting States? Or are such suits barred by state sovereign immunity?

3. Yes. States consented to federal eminent domain at the founding, Congress has delegated it to private builders (canals, railroads) since the 1800s, and the company stands in the federal government’s shoes. State sovereign immunity does not bar condemnation actions brought by private delegatees of the federal eminent domain power against nonconsenting States.

What is stare decisis? What are the factors for overlong past precedent?

Precedent is set forth by prior cases. Applied more flexibly in constitutional cases.

1. nature of the error

2. quality of reasoning

3. workability

4. disruption of related doctrines

5. lack of reliance interests.

According to the Supreme Court in Alden v. Maine (1999), why do the states enjoy immunity from private lawsuits in federal court?

A. Article III, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution expressly excludes lawsuits against the states from the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts.

B. Congress provided this immunity by statute when exercising its power, in Article III, section 1, to ordain and establish lower federal courts.

C. The Constitution, when adopted, was understood to preserve the States’ traditional immunity from private suits even though no provision expressly says this.

D. The Eleventh Amendment provides that the judicial power of the United States does not extend to any suit commenced against a state by a citizen of another state.

C

Congress has passed a law requiring all trucks weighing more than 4 tons to pass a safety inspection before driving on interstate highways. Which of the following statements is true?

A. Congress cannot impose this requirement on any trucks unless they drive on highways funded, in whole or in part, by the federal government.

B. Like privately owned trucks, state government trucks weighing more than 4 tons cannot use interstate highways unless they pass a safety inspection, and the federal government can carry out the inspections.

C. State government trucks do not have to be inspected under this law because Congress cannot regulate them.

D. To preserve state sovereignty, Congress can direct that state officials rather than federal officials will inspect state government vehicles.

B. Correct. This statement is true. Congress can regulate interstate highways under its Commerce Power because these highways are channels of interstate commerce. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). It may subject state government trucks to generally applicable regulations. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). Congress can direct federal officials to carry out the inspections.

Congress has passed a new law requiring all employers to deposit 0.5% of each employee's salary in a "medical trust account" that will be controlled by the employee. The employee will not have to pay income tax on this money and can use it to pay for covered medical expenses. Peter works as a security guard for the Rhode Island state government. Peter has sued the Rhode Island government, claiming that they failed to make last year's deposit. He seeks money damages. Which of the following statements is true?

A. Peter may recover for any deposits not paid in the past but cannot obtain an injunction against the state requiring the state to make future deposits.

B. A federal court cannot exercise jurisdiction over Rhode Island, absent the state's consent, because the state has sovereign immunity.

C. A court can order Rhode Island to pay the money because Congress may subject states to generally applicable federal laws.

D. This lawsuit would be barred, even in state court, by the Eleventh Amendment.

B. Correct. Congress cannot subject the states to private suits for damages without their consent in federal court, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), or state court, Alden v. Maine (1999), because of state sovereign immunity.

During a recent Sunday morning news-talk television show, Democratic and Republican pundits sparred over issues related to the immigration of undocumented school-aged children. The pundits disagreed sharply in their estimates of how many of these children were enrolling in public schools. Congress responded the next month by passing a law requiring every school principal in a state school system to conduct a survey of pupils and file a report to the secretary of education. Is the law constitutional?

A. The law is constitutional because Congress has the power to use conditional spending to induce compliance with federal regulatory regimes.

B. The law is constitutional because the number of immigrant children in the public schools could affect the quality of education, which in turn may have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

C. The law is constitutional because it is necessary and proper for carrying out the federal power to regulate naturalization.

D. The law is unconstitutional because Congress cannot compel state officials like school principals to carry out federal laws.

D. Correct. Congress cannot compel state officials to administer a federal regulatory program. Printz v. United States (1997).

Congress sometimes takes actions that test the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government. Which of the following statements regarding legislative power is correct?

A. The federal courts cannot appoint an official who exercises executive powers.

B. The House and Senate can, in effect, make laws without involving the President through the process of passing joint resolutions.

C. Congress can enact statutes that give Executive Branch agencies discretion, guided by intelligible principles, to promulgate binding regulations, even if this means that the Executive Branch can make significant policy decisions.

D. Congress can delegate legislative power to independent administrative agencies which can issue binding regulations.

C. Correct. Congress may give the executive branch discretion to promulgate rules and regulations so long as Congress guides the discretion with some “intelligible principle.” Whitman v. American Trucking (2007).