Section 8: Powers of Congress


Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all ...


Clause 1. Power to Tax and Spend

Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Kinds of Taxes Permitted

By the terms of the Constitution, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and two qualifications. Articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all. Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. The Court has emphasized the sweeping character of this power by saying from time to time that it "reaches every subject," that it is "exhaustive" or that it "embraces every conceivable power of taxation." Despite these generalizations, the power has been at times substantially curtailed by judicial decision with respect to the subject matter of taxation, the manner in which taxes are imposed, and the objects for which they may be levied.

Decline of the Forbidden Subject Matter Test.-The Supreme Court has restored to Congress the power to tax most of the subject matter which had previously been withdrawn from its reach by judicial decision. The holding of Evans v. Gore and Miles v. Graham that the inclusion of the salaries received by federal judges in measuring the liability for a nondiscriminatory income tax violated the constitutional mandate that the compensation of such judges should not be diminished during their continuance in office was repudiated in O'Malley v. Woodrough. The specific ruling of Collector v. Daythat the salary of a state officer is immune to federal income taxation also has been overruled. But the principle underlying that decision-that Congress may not lay a tax which would impair the sovereignty of the States-is still recognized as retaining some vitality.

Federal Taxation of State Interests.-In 1903 a succession tax upon a bequest to a municipality for public purposes was upheld on the ground that the tax was payable out of the estate before distribution to the legatee. Looking to form and not to substance, in disregard of the mandate of Brown v. Maryland, a closely divided Court declined to "regard it as a tax upon the municipality, though it might operate incidentally to reduce the bequest by the amount of the tax." When South Carolina embarked upon the business of dispensing alcoholic beverages, its agents were held to be subject to the national internal revenue tax, the ground of the holding being that in 1787 such a business was not regarded as one of the ordinary functions of government.

Another decision marking a clear departure from the logic of Collector v. Day was Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., where the Court sustained an act of Congress taxing the privilege of doing business as a corporation, the tax being measured by the income. The argument that the tax imposed an unconstitutional burden on the exercise by a State of its reserved power to create corporate franchises was rejected, partly in consideration of the principle of national supremacy, and partly on the ground that the corporate franchises were private property. This case also qualified Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. to the extent of allowing interest on state bonds to be included in measuring the tax on the corporation.

Subsequent cases have sustained an estate tax on the net estate of a decedent, including state bonds, excise taxes on the transportation of merchandise in performance of a contract to sell and deliver it to a county, on the importation of scientific apparatus by a state university, on admissions to athletic contests sponsored by a state institution, the net proceeds of which were used to further its educational program, and on admissions to recreational facilities operated on a nonprofit basis by a municipal corporation. Income derived by independent engineering contractors from the performance of state functions,the compensation of trustees appointed to manage a street railway taken over and operated by a State, profits derived from the sale of state bonds, or from oil produced by lessees of state lands, have all been held to be subject to federal taxation despite a possible economic burden on the State.

In finally overruling Pollock, the Court stated that Pollock had "merely represented one application of the more general rule that neither the federal nor the state governments could tax income an individual directly derived from any contract with another government."That rule, the Court observed, had already been rejected in numerous decisions involving intergovernmental immunity. "We see no constitutional reason for treating persons who receive interest on governmental bonds differently than persons who receive income from other types of contracts with the government, and no tenable rationale for distinguishing the costs imposed on States by a tax on state bond interest from the costs imposed by a tax on the income from any other state contract."

Scope of State Immunity From Federal Taxation.-Although there have been sharp differences of opinion among members of the Supreme Court in cases dealing with the tax immunity of state functions and instrumentalities, it has been stated that "all agree that not all of the former immunity is gone." Twice, the Court has made an effort to express its new point of view in a statement of general principles by which the right to such immunity shall be determined. However, the failure to muster a majority in concurrence with any single opinion in the latter case leaves the question very much in doubt. In Helvering v. Gerhardt, where, without overruling Collector v. Day, it narrowed the immunity of salaries of state officers from federal income taxation, the Court announced "two guiding principles of limitation for holding the tax immunity of State instrumentalities to its proper function. The one, dependent upon the nature of the function being performed by the State or in its behalf, excludes from the immunity activities thought not to be essential to the preservation of State governments even though the tax be collected from the State treasury.... The other principle, exemplified by those cases where the tax laid upon individuals affects the State only as the burden is passed on to it by the taxpayer, forbids recognition of the immunity when the burden on the State is so speculative and uncertain that if allowed it would restrict the federal taxing power without affording any corresponding tangible protection to the State government; even though the function be thought important enough to demand immunity from a tax upon the State itself, it is not necessarily protected from a tax which well may be substantially or entirely absorbed by private persons."

The second attempt to formulate a general doctrine was made in New York v. United States, where, on review of a judgment affirming the right of the United States to tax the sale of mineral waters taken from property owned and operated by the State of New York, the Court reconsidered the right of Congress to tax business enterprises carried on by the States. Justice Frankfurter, speaking for himself and Justice Rutledge, made the question of discrimination vel non against state activities the test of the validity of such a tax. They found "no restriction upon Congress to include the States in levying a tax exacted equally from private persons upon the same subject matter." In a concurring opinion in which Justices Reed, Murphy, and Burton joined, Chief Justice Stone rejected the criterion of discrimination. He repeated what he had said in an earlier case to the effect that "the limitation upon the taxing power of each, so far as it affects the other, must receive a practical construction which permits both to function with the minimum of interference each with the other; and that limitation cannot be so varied or extended as seriously to impair either the taxing power of the government imposing the tax . . . or the appropriate exercise of the functions of the government affected by it."

Justices Douglas and Black dissented in an opinion written by the former on the ground that the decision disregarded the Tenth Amendment, placed "the sovereign States on the same plane as private citizens," and made them "pay the Federal Government for the privilege of exercising powers of sovereignty guaranteed them by the Constitution." In a later case dealing with state immunity the Court sustained the tax on the second ground mentioned in Helvering v. Gerhardt-that the burden of the tax was borne by private persons-and did not consider whether the function was one which the Federal Government might have taxed if the municipality had borne the burden of the exaction.

Articulation of the current approach may be found in South Carolina v. Baker. The rules are "essentially the same" for federal immunity from state taxation and for state immunity from federal taxation, except that some state activities may be subject to direct federal taxation, while States may "never" tax the United States directly. Either government may tax private parties doing business with the other government, "even though the financial burden falls on the [other government], as long as the tax does not discriminate against the [other government] or those with which it deals." Thus, "the issue whether a nondiscriminatory federal tax might nonetheless violate state tax immunity does not even arise unless the Federal Government seeks to collect the tax directly from a State."

Uniformity Requirement.-Whether a tax is to be apportioned among the States according to the census taken pursuant to Article I, § 2, or imposed uniformly throughout the United States depends upon its classification as direct or indirect. The rule of uniformity for indirect taxes is easy to obey. It requires only that the subject matter of a levy be taxed at the same rate wherever found in the United States; or, as it is sometimes phrased, the uniformity required is "geographical," not "intrinsic." Even the geographical limitation is a loose one, at least if United States v. Ptasynski is followed. There, the Court upheld an exemption from a crude-oil windfall-profits tax of "Alaskan oil," defined geographically to include oil produced in Alaska (or elsewhere) north of the Arctic Circle. What is prohibited, the Court said, is favoritism to particular States in the absence of valid bases of classification. Because Congress could have achieved the same result, allowing for severe climactic difficulties, through a classification tailored to the "disproportionate costs and difficulties . . . associated with extracting oil from this region," the fact that Congress described the exemption in geographic terms did not condemn the provision.

The clause accordingly places no obstacle in the way of legislative classification for the purpose of taxation, nor in the way of what is called progressive taxation. A taxing statute does not fail of the prescribed uniformity because its operation and incidence may be affected by differences in state laws. A federal estate tax law which permitted deduction for a like tax paid to a State was not rendered invalid by the fact that one State levied no such tax. The term "United States" in this clause refers only to the States of the Union, the District of Columbia, and incorporated territories. Congress is not bound by the rule of uniformity in framing tax measures for unincorporated territories. Indeed, in Binns v. United States, the Court sustained license taxes imposed by Congress but applicable only in Alaska, where the proceeds, although paid into the general fund of the Treasury, did not in fact equal the total cost of maintaining the territorial government.

Purposes of Taxation

Regulation by Taxation

The discretion of Congress in selecting the objectives of taxation has also been held at times to be subject to limitations implied from the nature of the Federal System. Apart from matters that Congress is authorized to regulate, the national taxing power, it has been said, "reaches only existing subjects." Congress may tax any activity actually carried on, such as the business of accepting wagers, regardless of whether it is permitted or prohibited by the laws of the United States or by those of a State. But so-called federal "licenses," so far as they relate to trade within state limits, merely express, "the purpose of the government not to interfere . . . with the trade nominally licensed, if the required taxes are paid." Whether the "licensed" trade shall be permitted at all is a question for decision by the State. This, nevertheless, does not signify that Congress may not often regulate to some extent a business within a State in order to tax it more effectively. Under the necessary-and-proper clause, Congress may do this very thing. Not only has the Court sustained regulations concerning the packaging of taxed articles such as tobacco and oleomargarine, ostensibly designed to prevent fraud in the collection of the tax, it has also upheld measures taxing drugs and firearms, which prescribed rigorous restrictions under which such articles could be sold or transferred, and imposed heavy penalties upon persons dealing with them in any other way. These regulations were sustained as conducive to the efficient collection of the tax though they clearly transcended in some respects this ground of justification.

Extermination by Taxation

A problem of a different order is presented where the tax itself has the effect of suppressing an activity or where it is coupled with regulations that clearly have no possible relation to the collection of the tax. Where a tax is imposed unconditionally, so that no other purpose appears on the face of the statute, the Court has refused to inquire into the motives of the lawmakers and has sustained the tax despite its prohibitive proportions. "It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed.... The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible . . . or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary.... Nor does a tax statute necessarily fall because it touches on activities which Congress might not otherwise regulate. As was pointed out in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40 , 47 (1934): 'From the beginning of our government, the courts have sustained taxes although imposed with the collateral intent of effecting ulterior ends which, considered apart, were beyond the constitutional power of the lawmakers to realize by legislation directly addressed to their accomplishments.'"

But where the tax is conditional, and may be avoided by compliance with regulations set out in the statute, the validity of the measure is determined by the power of Congress to regulate the subject matter. If the regulations are within the competence of Congress, apart from its power to tax, the exaction is sustained as an appropriate sanction for making them effective; otherwise it is invalid. During the Prohibition Era, Congress levied a heavy tax upon liquor dealers who operated in violation of state law. In United States v. Constantine, the Court held that this tax was unenforceable after the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, since the National Government had no power to impose an additional penalty for infractions of state law.

Promotion of Business: Protective Tariff

The earliest examples of taxes levied with a view to promoting desired economic objectives in addition to raising revenue were, of course, import duties. The second statute adopted by the first Congress was a tariff act reciting that "it is necessary for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise imported." After being debated for nearly a century and a half, the constitutionality of protective tariffs was finally settled by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in J. W. Hampton & Co. v. United States, where Chief Justice Taft wrote: "The second objection to §315 is that the declared plan of Congress, either expressly or by clear implication, formulates its rule to guide the President and his advisory Tariff Commission as one directed to a tariff system of protection that will avoid damaging competition to the country's industries by the importation of goods from other countries at too low a rate to equalize foreign and domestic competition in the markets of the United States. It is contended that the only power of Congress in the levying of customs duties is to create revenue, and that it is unconstitutional to frame the customs duties with any other view than that of revenue raising."

The Chief Justice then observed that the first Congress in 1789 had enacted a protective tariff. "In this first Congress sat many members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This Court has repeatedly laid down the principle that a contemporaneous legislative exposition of the Constitution when the founders of our Government and framers of our Constitution were actively participating in public affairs, long acquiesced in, fixes the construction to be given its provisions.... The enactment and enforcement of a number of customs revenue laws drawn with a motive of maintaining a system of protection, since the revenue law of 1789, are matters of history. . . . Whatever we may think of the wisdom of a rotection policy, we cannot hold it unconstitutional. So long as the motive of Congress and the effect of its legislative action are to secure revenue for the benefit of the general government, the existence of other motives in the selection of the subject of taxes cannot invalidate Congressional action."

Spending for the General Welfare

Scope of the Power

The grant of power to "provide ... for the general welfare" raises a two-fold question: how may Congress provide for "the general welfare" and what is "the general welfare" that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: "[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose." The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted,Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point.

With respect to the meaning of "the general welfare" the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, brod meaning of the clause; Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.

From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton. Appropriations for subsidies and for an ever increasing variety of "internal improvements" constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson. Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, sums of money apportioned among the States for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient State, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to its use, have become commonplace.

The scope of the national spending power was brought before the Supreme Court at least five times prior to 1936, but the Court disposed of four of the suits without construing the "general welfare" clause. In the Pacific Railway Cases and Smith v. Kansas City Title Co., it affirmed the power of Congress to construct internal improvements, and to charter and purchase the capital stock of federal land banks, by reference to its powers over commerce, post roads, and fiscal operations, and to its war powers. Decisions on the merits were withheld in two other cases, Massachusetts v. Mellon and Frothingham v. Mellon,on the ground that neither a State nor an individual citizen is entitled to a remedy in the courts against an alleged unconstitutional appropriation of national funds. In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway, however, the Court had invoked "the great power of taxation to be exercised for the common defence and general welfare" to sustain the right of the Federal Government to acquire land within a State for use as a national park.

Finally, in United States v. Butler, the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton's views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: "Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the "general welfare." The Court accords great deference to Congress's decision that a spending program advances the general welfare, and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable. Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.

As with its other powers, Congress may enact legislation "necessary and proper" to effectuate its purposes in taxing and spending. In upholding a law making it a crime to bribe state and local officials who administer programs that receive federal funds, the Court declared that Congress has authority "to see to it that taxpayer dollars . . . are in fact spent for the general welfare, and not frittered away in graft or on projects undermined when funds are siphoned off or corrupt public officers are derelict about demanding value for dollars." Congress' failure to require proof of a direct connection between the bribery and the federal funds was permissible, the Court concluded, because "corruption does not have to be that limited to affect the federal interest. Money is fungible, bribed officials are untrustworthy stewards of federal funds, and corrupt contractors do not deliver dollar-fordollar value."

Social Security Act Cases.-Although holding that the spending power is not limited by the specific grants of power contained in Article I, § 8, the Court found, nevertheless, that it was qualified by the Tenth Amendment, and on this ground ruled in the Butler case that Congress could not use moneys raised by taxation to "purchase compliance" with regulations "of matters of State concern with respect to which Congress has no authority to interfere." Within little more than a year this decision was reduced to narrow proportions by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State. To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were "weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy of the States," the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the "general welfare" clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation "to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation," since state unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury. The Court reserved judgment as to the validity of a tax "if it is laid upon the condition that a State may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power."

Conditional Grants-in-Aid.-It was not until 1947 that the right of Congress to impose conditions upon grants-in-aid over the objection of a State was squarely presented. The Court upheld Congress's power to do so in Oklahoma v. Civil Service Commission. The State objected to the enforcement of a provision of the Hatch Act that reduced its allotment of federal highway funds because of its failure to remove from office a member of the State Highway Commission found to have taken an active part in party politics while in office. The Court denied relief on the ground that, "[w]hile the United States is not concerned with, and has no power to regulate local political activities as such of State officials, it does have power to fix the terms upon which its money allotments to states shall be disbursed....

The end sought by Congress through the Hatch Act is better public service by requiring those who administer funds for national needs to abstain from active political partisanship. So even though the action taken by Congress does have effect upon certain activities within the State, it has never been thought that such effect made the federal act invalid."

The general principle is firmly established. "Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives. This Court has repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge the use of this technique to induce governments and private parties to cooperate voluntarily with federal policy."

The Court has set forth several standards purporting to channel Congress's discretion in attaching grant conditions. To date no statutes have been struck down as violating these standards, although several statutes have been interpreted so as to conform to the guiding principles. First, the conditions, like the spending itself, must advance the general welfare, but the determination of what constitutes the general welfare rests largely if not wholly with Congress. Second, because a grant is "much in the nature of a contract" offer that the States may accept or reject, Congress must set out the conditions unambiguously, so that the States may make an informed decision. Third, the Court continues to state that the conditions must be related to the federal interest for which the funds are expended, but it has never found a spending condition deficient under this part of the test. Fourth, the power to condition funds may not be used to induce the States to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional. Fifth, the Court has suggested that in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which "pressure turns into compulsion," but again the Court has never found a congressional condition to be coercive in this sense. Certain federalism restraints on other federal powers seem not to be relevant to spending conditions.

If a State accepts federal funds on conditions and then fails to follow the requirements, the usual remedy is federal administrative action to terminate the funding and to recoup funds the State has already received. While the Court has allowed beneficiaries of conditional grant programs to sue to compel states to comply with the federal conditions, more recently the Court has required that any such susceptibility to suit be clearly spelled out so that states will be informed of potential consequences of accepting aid. Finally, it should be noted that Congress has enacted a range of laws forbidding discrimination in federal assistance programs, and some of these laws are enforceable against the states.

Earmarked Funds.-The appropriation of the proceeds of a tax to a specific use does not affect the validity of the exaction, if the general welfare is advanced and no other constitutional provision is violated. Thus a processing tax on coconut oil was sustained despite the fact that the tax collected upon oil of Philippine production was segregated and paid into the Philippine Treasury. In Helvering v. Davis, the excise tax on employers, the proceeds of which were not earmarked in any way, although intended to provide funds for payments to retired workers, was upheld under the "general welfare" clause, the Tenth Amendment being found to be inapplicable.

Debts of the United States.-The power to pay the debts of the United States is broad enough to include claims of citizens arising on obligations of right and justice. The Court sustained an act of Congress which set apart for the use of the Philippine Islands, the revenue from a processing tax on coconut oil of Philippine production, as being in pursuance of a moral obligation to protect and promote the welfare of the people of the Islands. Curiously enough, this power was first invoked to assist the United States to collect a debt due to it. In United States v. Fisher, the Supreme Court sustained a statute which gave the Federal Government priority in the distribution of the estates of its insolvent debtors. The debtor in that case was the endorser of a foreign bill of exchange that apparently had been purchased by the United States. Invoking the "necessary and proper" clause, Chief Justice Marshall deduced the power to collect a debt from the power to pay its obligations by the following reasoning: "The government is to pay the debt of the Union, and must be authorized to use the means which appear to itself most eligible to effect that object. It has, consequently, a right to make remittances by bills or otherwise, and to take those precautions which will render the transaction safe."

Clause 2. Borrowing Power

Clause 2. The Congress shall have Power *** To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.

The original draft of the Constitution reported to the convention by its Committee of Detail empowered Congress "To borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States." When this section was reached in the debates, Gouverneur Morris moved to strike out the clause "and emit bills on the credit of the United States." Madison suggested that it might be sufficient "to prohibit the making them a tender." After a spirited exchange of views on the subject of paper money, the convention voted, nine States to two, to delete the words "and emit bills." Nevertheless, in 1870, the Court relied in part upon this clause in holding that Congress had authority to issue treasury notes and to make them legal tender in satisfaction of antecedent debts.

When it borrows money "on the credit of the United States," Congress creates a binding obligation to pay the debt as stipulated and cannot thereafter vary the terms of its agreement. A law purporting to abrogate a clause in government bonds calling for payment in gold coin was held to contravene this clause, although the creditor was denied a remedy in the absence of a showing of actual damage.

Clause 3. Commerce Power

Clause 3. The Congress shall have Power *** To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Power to Regulate Commerce

Purposes Served by the Grant

This clause serves a two-fold purpose: it is the direct source of the most important powers that the Federal Government exercises in peacetime, and, except for the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is the most important limitation imposed by the Constitution on the exercise of state power. The latter, restrictive operation of the clause was long the more important one from the point of view of the constitutional lawyer. Of the approximately 1400 cases which reached the Supreme Court under the clause prior to 1900, the overwhelming proportion stemmed from state legislation. The result was that, generally, the guiding lines in construction of the clause were initially laid down in the context of curbing state power rather than in that of its operation as a source of national power. The consequence of this historical progression was that the word "commerce" came to dominate the clause while the word "regulate" remained in the background. The so-called "constitutional revolution" of the 1930s, however, brought the latter word to its present prominence.

Definition of Terms

Commerce.-The etymology of the word "commerce" carries the primary meaning of traffic, of transporting goods across state lines for sale. This possibly narrow constitutional conception was rejected by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, which remains one of the seminal cases dealing with the Constitution. The case arose because of a monopoly granted by the New York legislature on the operation of steam-propelled vessels on its waters, a monopoly challenged by Gibbons, who transported passengers from New Jersey to New York pursuant to privileges granted by an act of Congress. The New York monopoly was not in conflict with the congressional regulation of commerce, argued the monopolists, because the vessels carried only passengers between the two States and were thus not engaged in traffic, in "commerce" in the constitutional sense.

"The subject to be regulated is commerce," the Chief Justice wrote. "The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more-it is intercourse." The term, therefore, included navigation, a conclusion that Marshall also supported by appeal to general understanding, to the prohibition in Article I, § 9, against any preference being given "by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another," and to the admitted and demonstrated power of Congress to impose embargoes.

Marshall qualified the word "intercourse" with the word "commercial," thus retaining the element of monetary transactions. But, today, "commerce" in the constitutional sense, and hence "interstate commerce," covers every species of movement of persons and things, whether for profit or not, across state lines, every species of communication, every species of transmission of intelligence, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise,every species of commercial negotiation which will involve sooner or later an act of transportation of persons or things, or the flow of services or power, across state lines.

There was a long period in the Court's history when a majority of the Justices, seeking to curb the regulatory powers of the Federal Government by various means, held that certain things were not encompassed by the commerce clause because they were either not interstate commerce or bore no sufficient nexus to interstate commerce. Thus, at one time, the Court held that mining or manufacturing, even when the product would move in interstate commerce, was not reachable under the commerce clause; it held insurance transactions carried on across state lines not commerce, and that exhibitions of baseball between professional teams that travel from State to State were not in commerce, and that similarly the commerce clause was not applicable to the making of contracts for the insertion of advertisements in periodicals in another State or to the making of contracts for personal services to be rendered in another State. Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce. The activities of a Group Health Association, which serves only its own members, are "trade" and capable of becoming interstate commerce; the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different States is interstate commerce. But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to, the rationales by which manufacturing, mining, business transactions, and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power.

Among the Several States.-Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase "among the several States" was "not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state." It must therefore have been selected to demark "the exclusively internal commerce of a state." While, of course, the phrase "may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one," it is obvious that "[c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the exterior boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior." The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. "The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government."

Recognition of an "exclusively internal" commerce of a State, or "intrastate commerce" in today's terms, was at times regarded as setting out an area of state concern that Congress was precluded from reaching. While these cases seemingly visualized Congress' power arising only when there was an actual crossing of state boundaries, this view ignored Marshall's equation of "intrastate commerce" which "affect[s] other states" or "with which it is necessary to interfere" in order to effectuate congressional power with those actions which are "purely" interstate. This equation came back into its own, both with the Court's stress on the "current of commerce" bringing each element in the current within Congress' regulatory power, with the emphasis on the interrelationships of industrial production to interstate commerce but especially with the emphasis that even minor transactions have an effect on interstate commerce and that the cumulative effect of many minor transactions with no separate effect on interstate commerce, when they are viewed as a class, may be sufficient to merit congressional regulation. "Commerce among the states must, of necessity, be commerce with[in] the states.... The power of congress, then, whatever it may be, must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states."

Regulate.-"We are now arrived at the inquiry-" continued the Chief Justice, "What is this power? It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution . . . If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, is vested in congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States."

Of course, the power to regulate commerce is the power to prescribe conditions and rules for the carrying-on of commercial transactions, the keeping-free of channels of commerce, the regulating of prices and terms of sale. Even if the clause granted only this power, the scope would be wide, but it extends to include many more purposes than these. "Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other states from the state of origin. In doing this, it is merely exercising the police power, for the benefit of the public, within the field of interstate commerce." Thus, in upholding a federal statute prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made with child labor, not because the goods were intrinsically harmful but in order to extirpate child labor, the Court said: "It is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate commerce that its exercise is attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise of the police power of the states."

The power has been exercised to enforce majority conceptions of morality, to ban racial discrimination in public accommodations, and to protect the public against evils both natural and contrived by people. The power to regulate interstate commerce is, therefore, rightly regarded as the most potent grant of authority in § 8.

Necessary and Proper Clause.-All grants of power to Congress in § 8, as elsewhere, must be read in conjunction with the final clause, cl. 18, of § 8, which authorizes Congress "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers." It will be recalled that Chief Justice Marshall alluded to the power thus enhanced by this clause when he said that the regulatory power did not extend "to those internal concerns [of a state] . . . with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government." There are numerous cases permitting Congress to reach "purely" intrastate activities on the theory, combined with the previously mentioned emphasis on the cumulative effect of minor transactions, that it is necessary to regulate them in order that the regulation of interstate activities might be fully effectuated.

Federalism Limits on Exercise of Commerce Power.-As is recounted below, prior to reconsideration of the federal commerce power in the 1930s, the Court in effect followed a doctrine of "dual federalism," under which Congress' power to regulate much activity depended on whether it had a "direct" rather than an "indirect" effect on interstate commerce. When the restrictive interpretation was swept away during and after the New Deal, the question of federalism limits respecting congressional regulation of private activities became moot. However, the States did in a number of instances engage in commercial activities that would be regulated by federal legislation if the enterprise were privately owned; the Court easily sustained application of federal law to these state proprietary activities. However, as Congress began to extend regulation to state governmental activities, the judicial response was inconsistent and wavering. While the Court may shift again to constrain federal power on federalism grounds, at the present time the rule is that Congress lacks authority under the commerce clause to regulate the States as States in some circumstances, when the federal statutory provisions reach only the States and do not bring the States under laws of general applicability.

Illegal Commerce

That Congress' protective power over interstate commerce reaches all kinds of obstructions and impediments was made clear in United States v. Ferger. The defendants had been indicted for issuing a false bill of lading to cover a fictitious shipment in interstate commerce. Before the Court they argued that inasmuch as there could be no commerce in a fraudulent bill of lading, Congress had no power to exercise criminal jurisdiction over them. Said Chief Justice White: "But this mistakenly assumes that the power of Congress is to be necessarily tested by the intrinsic existence of commerce in the particular subject dealt with, instead of by the relation of that subject to commerce and its effect upon it. We say mistakenly assumes, because we think it clear that if the proposition were sustained it would destroy the power of Congress to regulate, as obviously that power, if it is to exist, must include the authority to deal with obstructions to interstate commerce . . . and with a host of other acts which, because of their relation to and influence upon interstate commerce, come within the power of Congress to regulate, although they are not interstate commerce in and of themselves." Much of Congress' criminal legislation is based simply on the crossing of a state line as creating federal jurisdiction.

Interstate Versus Foreign Commerce

There are certain dicta urging or suggesting that Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce restrictively is less than its analogous power over foreign commerce, the argument being that whereas the latter is a branch of the Nation's unlimited power over foreign relations, the former was conferred upon the National Government primarily in order to protect freedom of commerce from state interference. The four dissenting Justices in the Lottery Case endorsed this view in the following words: "The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and the power to regulate interstate commerce, are to be taken diverso intuitu, for the latter was intended to secure equality and freedom in commercial intercourse as between the States, not to permit the creation of impediments to such intercourse; while the former clothed Congress with that power over international commerce, pertaining to a sovereign nation in its intercourse with foreign nations, and subject, generally speaking, to no implied or reserved power in the States. The laws which would be necessary and proper in the one case would not be necessary or proper in the other."

And twelve years later Chief Justice White, speaking for the Court, expressed the same view, as follows: "In the argument reference is made to decisions of this court dealing with the subject of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but the very postulate upon which the authority of Congress to absolutely prohibit foreign importations as expounded by the decisions of this court rests is the broad distinction which exists between the two powers and therefore the cases cited and many more which might be cited announcing the principles which they uphold have obviously no relation to the question in hand."

But dicta to the contrary are much more numerous and span a far longer period of time. Thus Chief Justice Taney wrote in 1847: "The power to regulate commerce among the several States is granted to Congress in the same clause, and by the same words, as the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is co-extensive with it." And nearly fifty years later, Justice Field, speaking for the Court, said: "The power to regulate commerce among the several States was granted to Congress in terms as absolute as is the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations." Today it is firmly established doctrine that the power to regulate commerce, whether with foreign nations or among the several States, comprises the power to restrain or prohibit it at all times for the welfare of the public, provided only that the specific limitations imposed upon Congress' powers, as by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, are not transgressed.

The Radio Act of 1927 whereby "all forms of interstate and foreign radio transmissions within the United States, its Territories and possessions" were brought under national control, affords another illustration. Because of the doctrine thus stated, the measure met no serious constitutional challenge either on the floors of Congress or in the Courts.

Congressional Regulation of Waterways

Navigation.-In Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., the Court granted an injunction requiring that a bridge erected over the Ohio River under a charter from the State of Virginia either be altered so as to admit of free navigation of the river or else be entirely abated. The decision was justified on the basis both of the commerce clause and of a compact between Virginia and Kentucky, whereby both these States had agreed to keep the Ohio River "free and common to the citizens of the United States." The injunction was promptly rendered inoperative by an act of Congress declaring the bridge to be "a lawful structure" and requiring all vessels navigating the Ohio to be so regulated as not to interfere with it. This act the Court sustained as within Congress' power under the commerce clause, saying: "So far . . . as this bridge created an obstruction to the free navigation of the river, in view of the previous acts of Congress, they are to be regarded as modified by this subsequent legislation; and, although it still may be an obstruction in fact, [it] is not so in the contemplation of law.... [Congress] having in the exercise of this power, regulated the navigation consistent with its preservation and continuation, the authority to maintain it would seem to be complete. That authority combines the concurrent powers of both governments, State and federal, which, if not sufficient, certainly none can be found in our system of government." In short, it is Congress, and not the Court, which is authorized by the Constitution to regulate commerce.

The law and doctrine of the earlier cases with respect to the fostering and protection of navigation are well summed up in a frequently cited passage from the Court's opinion in Gilman v. Philadelphia. "Commerce includes navigation. The power to regulate commerce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States which are accessible from a State other than those in which they lie. For this purpose they are the public property of the nation, and subject to all requisite legislation by Congress. This necessarily includes the power to keep them open and free from any obstruction to their navigation, interposed by the States or otherwise; to remove such obstructions when they exist; and to provide, by such sanctions as they may deem proper, against the occurrence of the evil and for the punishment of offenders. For these purposes, Congress possesses all the powers which existed in the States before the adoption of the national Constitution, and which have always existed in the Parliament in England."

Thus, Congress was within its powers in vesting the Secretary of War with power to determine whether a structure of any nature in or over a navigable stream is an obstruction to navigation and to order its abatement if he so finds. Nor is the United States required to compensate the owners of such structures for their loss, since they were always subject to the servitude represented by Congress' powers over commerce, and the same is true of the property of riparian owners that is damaged. And while it was formerly held that lands adjoining nonnavigable streams were not subject to the above mentioned servitude, this rule has been impaired by recent decisions; and at any rate it would not apply as to a stream rendered navigable by improvements.

In exercising its power to foster and protect navigation, Congress legislates primarily on things external to the act of navigation. But that act itself and the instruments by which it is accomplished are also subject to Congress' power if and when they enter into or form a part of "commerce among the several States." When does this happen? Words quoted above from the Court's opinion in the Gilman case answered this question to some extent; but the decisive answer to it was returned five years later in the case of The Daniel Ball. Here the question at issue was whether an act of Congress, passed in 1838 and amended in 1852, which required that steam vessels engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise upon the "bays, lakes, rivers, or other navigable waters of the United States," applied to the case of a vessel that navigated only the waters of the Grand River, a stream lying entirely in the State of Michigan. The Court ruled: "In this case it is admitted that the steamer was engaged in shipping and transporting down Grand River, goods destined and marked for other States than Michigan, and in receiving and transporting up the river goods brought within the State from without its limits; ... So far as she was employed in transporting goods destined for other States, or goods brought from without the limits of Michigan and destined to places within that State, she was engaged in commerce between the States, and however limited that commerce may have been, she was, so far as it went, subject to the legislation of Congress. She was employed as an instrument of that commerce; for whenever a commodity has begun to move as an article of trade from one State to another, commerce in that commodity between the States has commenced."

Counsel had suggested that if the vessel was in commerce because it was part of a stream of commerce then all transportation within a State was commerce. Turning to this point, the Court added: "We answer that the present case relates to transportation on the navigable waters of the United States, and we are not called upon to express an opinion upon the power of Congress over interstate commerce when carried on by land transportation. And we answer further, that we are unable to draw any clear and distinct line between the authority of Congress to regulate an agency employed in commerce between the States, when the agency extends through two or more States, and when it is confined in its action entirely within the limits of a single State. If its authority does not extend to an agency in such commerce, when that agency is confined within the limits of a State, its entire authority over interstate commerce may be defeated. Several agencies combining, each taking up the commodity transported at the boundary line at one end of a State, and leaving it at the boundary line at the other end, the federal jurisdiction would be entirely ousted, and the constitutional provision would become a dead letter." In short, it was admitted, inferentially, that the principle of the decision would apply to land transportation, but the actual demonstration of the fact still awaited some years.

Hydroelectric Power; Flood Control.-As a consequence, in part, of its power to forbid or remove obstructions to navigation in the navigable waters of the United States, Congress has acquired the right to develop hydroelectric power and the ancillary right to sell it to all takers. By a long-standing doctrine of constitutional law, the States possess dominion over the beds of all navigable streams within their borders, but because of the servitude that Congress' power to regulate commerce imposes upon such streams, the States, without the assent of Congress, practically are unable to utilize their prerogative for power development purposes. Sensing no doubt that controlling power to this end must be attributed to some government in the United States and that "in such matters there can be no divided empire," the Court held in United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., that in constructing works for the improvement of the navigability of a stream, Congress was entitled, as part of a general plan, to authorize the lease or sale of such excess water power as might result from the conservation of the flow of the stream. "If the primary purpose is legitimate," it said, "we can see no sound objection to leasing any excess of power over the needs of the Government. The practice is not unusual in respect to similar public works constructed by State governments."

Since the Chandler-Dunbar case, the Court has come, in effect, to hold that it will sustain any act of Congress which purports to be for the improvement of navigation whatever other purposes it may also embody, nor does the stream involved have to be one "navigable in its natural state." Such, at least, seems to be the sum of its holdings in Arizona v. California, and United States v. Appalachian Power Co. In the former, the Court, speaking through Justice Brandeis, said that it was not free to inquire into the motives "which induced members of Congress to enact the Boulder Canyon Project Act," adding: "As the river is navigable and the means which the Act provides are not unrelated to the control of navigation . . . the erection and maintenance of such dam and reservoir are clearly within the powers conferred upon Congress. Whether the particular structures proposed are reasonably necessary, is not for this Court to determine.... And the fact that purposes other than navigation will also be served could not invalidate the exercise of the authority conferred, even if those other purposes would not alone have justified an exercise of congressional power."

And in the Appalachian Power case, the Court, abandoning previous holdings laying down the doctrine that to be subject to Congress' power to regulate commerce a stream must be "navigable in fact," said: "A waterway, otherwise suitable for navigation, is not barred from that classification merely because artificial aids must make the highway suitable for use before commercial navigation may be undertaken," provided there must be a "balance between cost and need at a time when the improvement would be useful.... Nor is it necessary that the improvements should be actually completed or even authorized. The power of Congress over commerce is not to be hampered because of the necessity for reasonable improvements to make an interstate waterway available for traffic.... Nor is it necessary for navigability that the use should be continuous.... Even absence of use over long periods of years, because of changed conditions, . . . does not affect the navigability of rivers in the constitutional sense."

Furthermore, the Court defined the purposes for which Congress may regulate navigation in the broadest terms. "It cannot properly be said that the constitutional power of the United States over its waters is limited to control for navigation.... That authority is as broad as the needs of commerce.... Flood protection, watershed development, recovery of the cost of improvements through utilization of power are likewise parts of commerce control."These views the Court has since reiterated. Nor is it by virtue of Congress' power over navigation alone that the National Government may develop water power. Its war powers and powers of expenditure in furtherance of the common defense and the general welfare supplement its powers over commerce in this respect.

Congressional Regulation of Land Transportation

Federal Stimulation of Land Transportation.-The settlement of the interior of the country led Congress to seek to facilitate access by first encouraging the construction of highways. In successive acts, it authorized construction of the Cumberland and the National Road from the Potomac across the Alleghenies to the Ohio, reserving certain public lands and revenues from land sales for construction of public roads to new States granted statehood. Acquisition and settlement of California stimulated interest in railway lines to the west, but it was not until the Civil War that Congress voted aid in the construction of a line from the Missouri River to the Pacific; four years later, it chartered the Union Pacific Company.

The litigation growing out of these and subsequent activities settled several propositions. First, Congress may provide highways and railways for interstate transportation; second, it may charter private corporations for that purpose; third, it may vest such corporations with the power of eminent domain in the States; and fourth, it may exempt their franchises from state taxation.

Federal Regulation of Land Transportation.-Congressional regulation of railroads may be said to have begun in 1866. By the Garfield Act, Congress authorized all railroad companies operating by steam to interconnect with each other "so as to form continuous lines for the transportation of passengers, freight, troops, governmental supplies, and mails, to their destination." An act of the same year provided federal chartering and protection from conflicting state regulations to companies formed to construct and operate telegraph lines. Another act regulated the transportation by railroad of livestock so as to preserve the health and safety of the animals.

Congress' entry into the rate regulation field was preceded by state attempts to curb the abuses of the rail lines in the Middle West, which culminated in the "Granger Movement." Because the businesses were locally owned, the Court at first upheld state laws as not constituting a burden on interstate commerce; but after the various business panics of the 1870s and 1880s drove numerous small companies into bankruptcy and led to consolidation, there emerged great interstate systems. Thus in 1886, the Court held that a State may not set charges for carriage even within its own boundaries of goods brought from without the State or destined to points outside it; that power was exclusively with Congress. In the following year, Congress passed the original Interstate Commerce Act. A Commission was authorized to pass upon the "reasonableness" of all rates by railroads for the transportation of goods or persons in interstate commerce and to order the discontinuance of all charges found to be "unreasonable." The Commission's basic authority was upheld in ICC v. Brimson, in which the Court upheld the validity of the Act as a means "necessary and proper" for the enforcement of the regulatory commerce power and in which it also sustained the Commission's power to go to court to secure compliance with its orders. Later decisions circumscribed somewhat the ICC's power.

Expansion of the Commission's authority came in the Hepburn Act of 1906 and the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910. By the former, the Commission was explicitly empowered, after a full hearing on a complaint, "to determine and prescribe just and reasonable" maximum rates; by the latter, it was authorized to set rates on its own initiative and empowered to suspend any increase in rates by a carrier until it reviewed the change. At the same time, the Commission's jurisdiction was extended to telegraphs, telephones, and cables. By the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the ICC was authorized to regulate the transportation of persons and property by motor vehicle common carriers.

The modern powers of the Commission were largely defined by the Transportation Acts of 1920 and 1940. The jurisdiction of the Commission covers not only the characteristics of the rail, motor, and water carriers in commerce among the States but also the issuance of securities by them and all consolidations of existing companies or lines.Further, the Commission was charged with regulating so as to foster and promote the meeting of the transportation needs of the country. Thus, from a regulatory exercise originally begun as a method of restraint there has emerged a policy of encouraging a consistent national transportation policy.

Federal Regulation of Intrastate Rates (The Shreveport Doctrine).-Although its statutory jurisdiction did not apply to intrastate rate systems, the Commission early asserted the right to pass on rates, which, though in effect on intrastate lines, gave these lines competitive advantages over interstate lines the rates of which the Commission had set. This power the Supreme Court upheld in a case involving a line operating wholly intrastate in Texas but which paralleled within Texas an interstate line operating between Louisiana and Texas; the Texas rate body had fixed the rates of the intrastate line substantially lower than the rate fixed by the ICC on the interstate line. "Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the State, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority and the States and not the Nation, would be supreme in the national field."

The same holding was applied in a subsequent case in which the Court upheld the Commission's action in annulling intrastate passenger rates it found to be unduly low in comparison with the rates the Commission had established for interstate travel, thus tending to thwart, in deference to a local interest, the general purpose of the act to maintain an efficient transportation service for the benefit of the country at large.

Federal Protection of Labor in Interstate Rail Transportation.-Federal entry into the field of protective labor legislation and the protection of organization efforts of workers began in connection with the railroads. The Safety Appliance Act of 1893, applying only to cars and locomotives engaged in moving interstate traffic, was amended in 1903 so as to embrace much of the intrastate rail systems on which there was any connection with interstate commerce. The Court sustained this extension in language much like that it would use in the Shreveport case three years later. These laws were followed by the Hours of Service Act of 1907, which prescribed maximum hours of employment for rail workers in interstate or foreign commerce. The Court sustained the regulation as a reasonable means of protecting workers and the public from the hazards which could develop from long, tiring hours of labor.

Most far-reaching of these regulatory measures were the Federal Employers Liability Acts of 1906 and 1908. These laws were intended to modify the common-law rules with regard to the liability of employers for injuries suffered by their employees in the course of their employment and under which employers were generally not liable. Rejecting the argument that regulation of such relationships between employers and employees was a reserved state power, the Court adopted the argument of the United States that Congress was empowered to do anything it might deem appropriate to save interstate commerce from interruption or burdening. Inasmuch as the labor of employees was necessary for the function of commerce, Congress could certainly act to ameliorate conditions that made labor less efficient, less economical, and less reliable. Assurance of compensation for injuries growing out of negligence in the course of employment was such a permissible regulation.

Legislation and litigation dealing with the organizational rights of rail employees are dealt with elsewhere.

Regulation of Other Agents of Carriage and Communications.-In 1914, the Court affirmed the power of Congress to regulate the transportation of oil and gas in pipelines from one State to another and held that this power applied to the transportation even though the oil or gas was the property of the lines. Subsequently, the Court struck down state regulation of rates of electric current generated within that State and sold to a distributor in another State as a burden on interstate commerce. Proceeding on the assumption that the ruling meant the Federal Government had the power, Congress in the Federal Power Act of 1935 conferred on the Federal Power Commission authority to regulate the wholesale distribution of electricity in interstate commerce and three years later vested the FPC with like authority over natural gas moving in interstate commerce. Thereafter, the Court sustained the power of the Commission to set the prices at which gas originating in one State and transported into another should be sold to distributors wholesale in the latter State. "The sale of natural gas originating in the State and its transportation and delivery to distributors in any other State constitutes interstate commerce, which is subject to regulation by Congress ... The authority of Congress to regulate the prices of commodities in interstate commerce is at least as great under the Fifth Amendment as is that of the States under the Fourteenth to regulate the prices of commodities in intrastate commerce."

Colorado-Wyoming Co. v. FPC, 324 U.S. 626 (1945). See also Illinois Gas Co. v. Public Service Co., 314 U.S. 498 (1942); FPC v. East Ohio Gas Co., 338 U. S. 464 (1950). In Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U.S. 672 (1954), the Court ruled that an independent company engaged in one State in production, gathering, and processing of natural gas, which it thereafter sells in the same State to pipelines that transport and sell the gas in other States is subject to FPC jurisdiction. See also California v. Lo-Vaca Gathering Co., 379 U.S. 366 (1965). Other acts regulating commerce and communication originating in this period have evoked no basic constitutional challenge. These include the Federal Communications Act of 1934, providing for the regulation of interstate and foreign communication by wire and radio,and the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, providing for the regulation of all phases of airborne commerce, foreign and interstate.

Congressional Regulation of Commerce as Traffic

The Sherman Act: Sugar Trust Case.-Congress' chief effort to regulate commerce in the primary sense of "traffic" is embodied in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the opening section of which declares "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise," or "conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations" to be "illegal," while the second section makes it a misdemeanor for anybody to "monopolize or attempt to monopolize any part of such commerce." The act was passed to curb the growing tendency to form industrial combinations, and the first case to reach the Court under it was the famous Sugar Trust Case, United States v. E. C. Knight Co. Here the Government asked for the cancellation of certain agreements, whereby the American Sugar Refining Company, had "acquired," it was conceded, "nearly complete control of the manufacture of refined sugar in the United States."

The question of the validity of the Act was not expressly discussed by the Court but was subordinated to that of its proper construction. The Court, in pursuance of doctrines of constitutional law then dominant with it, turned the Act from its intended purpose and destroyed its effectiveness for several years, as that of the Interstate Commerce Act was being contemporaneously impaired. The following passage early in Chief Justice Fuller's opinion for the Court sets forth the conception of the federal system that controlled the decision: "It is vital that the independence of the commercial power and of the police power, and the delimination between them, however sometimes perplexing, should always be recognized and observed, for while the one furnishes the strongest bond of union, the other is essential to the preservation of the autonomy of the States as required by our dual form of government; and acknowledged evils, however grave and urgent they may appear to be, had better be borne, than the risk be run, in the effort to suppress them, of more serious consequences by resort to expedients of even doubtful constitutionality."

In short, what was needed, the Court felt, was a hard and fast line between the two spheres of power, and in a series of propositions it endeavored to lay down such a line: (1) production is always local, and under the exclusive domain of the States; (2) commerce among the States does not begin until goods "commence their final movement from their State of origin to that of their destination;" (3) the sale of a product is merely an incident of its production and, while capable of "bringing the operation of commerce into play," affects it only incidentally; (4) such restraint as would reach commerce, as above defined, in consequence of combinations to control production "in all its forms," would be "indirect, however inevitable and whatever its extent," and as such beyond the purview of the Act.Applying the above reasoning to the case before it, the Court proceeded: "The object [of the combination] was manifestly private gain in the manufacture of the commodity, but not through the control of interstate or foreign commerce. It is true that the bill alleged that the products of these refineries were sold and distributed among the several States, and that all the companies were engaged in trade or commerce with the several States and with foreign nations; but this was no more than to say that trade and commerce served manufacture to fulfill its function."

"Sugar was refined for sale, and sales were probably made at Philadelphia for consumption, and undoubtedly for resale by the first purchasers throughout Pennsylvania and other States, and refined sugar was also forwarded by the companies to other States for sale. Nevertheless it does not follow that an attempt to monopolize, or the actual monopoly of, the manufacture was an attempt, whether executory or consummated, to monopolize commerce, even though, in order to dispose of the product, the instrumentality of commerce was necessarily invoked. There was nothing in the proofs to indicate any intention to put a restraint upon trade or commerce, and the fact, as we have seen that trade or commerce might be indirectly affected was not enough to entitle complainants to a decree."

Sherman Act Revived.-Four years later came the case of Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, in which the Antitrust Act was successfully applied as against an industrial combination for the first time. The agreements in the case, the parties to which were manufacturing concerns, effected a division of territory among them, and so involved, it was held, a "direct" restraint on the distribution and hence of the transportation of the products of the contracting firms. The holding, however, did not question the doctrine of the earlier case, which in fact continued substantially undisturbed until 1905, when Swift & Co. v. United States, was decided.

In Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219 , 229 - 239 (1948), Justice Rutledge, for the Court, critically reviewed the jurisprudence of the limitations on the Act and and the deconstruction of the judicial constraints. In recent years, the Court's decisions have permitted the reach of the Sherman Act to expand along with the expanding notions of congressional power. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U.S. 186 (1974); Hospital Building Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738 (1976); McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans, 444 U.S. 232 (1980); Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991). The Court, however, does insist that plaintiffs alleging that an intrastate activity violates the Act prove the relationship to interstate commerce set forth in the Act. Gulf Oil Corp, 419 U.S. at 194-199.

The "Current of Commerce" Concept: The Swift Case.- Defendants in Swift were some thirty firms engaged in Chicago and other cities in the business of buying livestock in their stock-yards, in converting it at their packing houses into fresh meat, and in the sale and shipment of such fresh meat to purchasers in other States. The charge against them was that they had entered into a combination to refrain from bidding against each other in the local markets, to fix the prices at which they would sell, to restrict shipments of meat, and to do other forbidden acts. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court on defendants' contention that certain of the acts complained of were not acts of interstate commerce and so did not fall within a valid reading of the Sherman Act. The Court, however, sustained the Government on the ground that the "scheme as a whole" came within the act, and that the local activities alleged were simply part and parcel of this general scheme.

Referring to the purchase of livestock at the stockyards, the Court, speaking by Justice Holmes, said: "Commerce among the States is not a technical legal conception, but a practical one, drawn from the course of business. When cattle are sent for sale from a place in one State, with the expectation that they will end their transit, after purchase, in another, and when in effect they do so, with only the interruption necessary to find a purchaser at the stockyards, and when this is a typical, constantly recurring course, the current thus existing is a current of commerce among the States, and the purchase of the cattle is a part and incident of such commerce." Likewise the sales alleged of fresh meat at the slaughtering places fell within the general design. Even if they imported a technical passing of title at the slaughtering places, they also imported that the sales were to persons in other States, and that shipments to such States were part of the transaction. Thus, sales of the type that in the Sugar Trust case were thrust to one side as immaterial from the point of view of the law, because they enabled the manufacturer "to fulfill its function," were here treated as merged in an interstate commerce stream.

Thus, the concept of commerce as trade, that is, as traffic, again entered the constitutional law picture, with the result that conditions directly affecting interstate trade could not be dismissed on the ground that they affected interstate commerce, in the sense of interstate transportation, only "indirectly." Lastly, the Court added these significant words: "But we do not mean to imply that the rule which marks the point at which State taxation or regulation becomes permissible necessarily is beyond the scope of interference by Congress in cases where such interference is deemed necessary for the protection of commerce among the States." That is to say, the line that confines state power from one side does not always confine national power from the other. Even though the line accurately divides the subject matter of the complementary spheres, national power is always entitled to take on the additional extension that is requisite to guarantee its effective exercise and is furthermore supreme.

The Danbury Hatters Case.-In this respect, the Swift case only states what the Shreveport case was later to declare more explicitly, and the same may be said of an ensuing series of cases in which combinations of employees engaged in such intrastate activities as manufacturing, mining, building, construction, and the distribution of poultry were subjected to the penalties of the Sherman Act because of the effect or intended effect of their activities on interstate commerce.

Stockyards and Grain Futures Acts.-In 1921 Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act whereby the business of commission men and livestock dealers in the chief stockyards of the country was brought under national supervision, and in the year following it passed the Grain Futures Act whereby exchanges dealing in grain futures were subjected to control. The decisions of the Court sustaining these measures both built directly upon the Swift case.

In Stafford v. Wallace, which involved the former act, Chief Justice Taft, speaking for the Court, said: "The object to be secured by the act is the free and unburdened flow of livestock from the ranges and farms of the West and Southwest through the great stockyards and slaughtering centers on the borders of that region, and thence in the form of meat products to the consuming cities of the country in the Middle West and East, or, still as livestock, to the feeding places and fattening farms in the Middle West or East for further preparation for the market." The stockyards, therefore, were "not a place of rest or final destination." They were "but a throat through which the current flows," and the sales there were not merely local transactions. "They do not stop the flow;-but, on the contrary" are "indispensable to its continuity."

In Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen, involving the Grain Futures Act, the same course of reasoning was repeated. Speaking of the Swift case, Chief Justice Taft remarked: "That case was a milestone in the interpretation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. It recognized the great changes and development in the business of this vast country and drew again the dividing line between interstate and intrastate commerce where the Constitution intended it to be. It refused to permit local incidents of a great interstate movement, which taken alone are intrastate, to characterize the movement as such."

Of special significance, however, is the part of the opinion devoted to showing the relation between future sales and cash sales, and hence the effect of the former upon the interstate grain trade. The test, said the Chief Justice, was furnished by the question of price. "The question of price dominates trade between the States. Sales of an article which affect the country-wide price of the article directly affect the country-wide commerce in it." Thus a practice which demonstrably affects prices would also affect interstate trade "directly," and so, even though local in itself, would fall within the regulatory power of Congress. In the following passage, indeed, Chief Justice Taft whittled down, in both cases, the "direct- indirect" formula to the vanishing point: "Whatever amounts to more or less constant practice, and threatens to obstruct or unduly to burden the freedom of interstate commerce is within the regulatory power of Congress under the commerce clause, and it is primarily for Congress to consider and decide the fact of the danger to meet it. This court will certainly not substitute its judgment for that of Congress in such a matter unless the relation of the subject to interstate commerce and its effect upon it are clearly nonexistent."

It was in reliance on the doctrine of these cases that Congress first set to work to combat the Depression in 1933 and the years immediately following. But in fact, much of its legislation at this time marked a wide advance upon the measures just passed in review. They did not stop with regulating traffic among the States and the instrumentalities thereof; they also essayed to govern production and industrial relations in the field of production. Confronted with this expansive exercise of Congress' power, the Court again deemed itself called upon to define a limit to the commerce power that would save to the States their historical sphere, and especially their customary monopoly of legislative power in relation to industry and labor management.

Securities and Exchange Commission.-Not all antidepression legislation, however, was of this new approach. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Public Utility Company Act ("Wheeler-Rayburn Act") of 1935 were not. The former created the Securities and Exchange Commission and authorized it to lay down regulations designed to keep dealing in securities honest and aboveboard and closed the channels of interstate commerce and the mails to dealers refusing to register under the act. The latter required the companies governed by it to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to inform it concerning their business, organization and financial structure, all on pain of being prohibited use of the facilities of interstate commerce and the mails; while by § 11, the so-called "death sentence" clause, the same act closed after a certain date the channels of interstate communication to certain types of public utility companies whose operations, Congress found, were calculated chiefly to exploit the investing and consuming public. All these provisions have been sustained, Gibbons v. Ogden furnishing the Court its principle reliance.

Congressional Regulation of Production and Industrial Relations: Antidepression Legislation

In the words of Chief Justice Hughes, spoken in a case decided a few days after President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first inauguration, the problem then confronting the new Administration was clearly set forth. "When industry is grievously hurt, when producing concerns fail, when unemployment mounts and communities dependent upon profitable production are prostrated, the wells of commerce go dry."

National Industrial Recovery Act.-The initial effort of Congress to deal with this situation was embodied in the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933. The opening section of the Act asserted the existence of "a national emergency productive of widespread unemployment and disorganization of industry which" burdened "interstate and foreign commerce," affected "the public welfare," and undermined "the standards of living of the American people." To affect the removal of these conditions the President was authorized, upon the application of industrial or trade groups, to approve "codes of fair competition," or to prescribe the same in cases where such applications were not duly forthcoming. Among other things such codes, of which eventually more than 700 were promulgated, were required to lay down rules of fair dealing with customers and to furnish labor certain guarantees respecting hours, wages and collective bargaining. For the time being, business and industry were to be cartelized on a national scale.

In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, one of these codes, the Live Poultry Code, was pronounced unconstitutional. Although it was conceded that practically all poultry handled by the Schechters came from outside the State, and hence via interstate commerce, the Court held, nevertheless, that once the chickens came to rest in the Schechter's wholesale market, interstate commerce in them ceased. The act, however, also purported to govern business activities which "affected" interstate commerce. This, Chief Justice Hughes held, must be taken to mean "directly" affect such commerce: "the distinction between direct and indirect effects of intrastate transactions upon interstate commerce must be recognized as a fundamental one, essential to the maintenance of our constitutional system. Otherwise, . . . there would be virtually no limit to the federal power and for all practical purposes we should have a completely centralized government." In short, the case was governed by the ideology of the Sugar Trust case, which was not mentioned in the Court's opinion.

Agricultural Adjustment Act.-Congress' second attempt to combat the Depression comprised the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. As is pointed out elsewhere, the measure was set aside as an attempt to regulate production, a subject held to be "prohibited" to the United States by the Tenth Amendment.

Bituminous Coal Conservation Act.-The third measure to be disallowed was the Guffey- Snyder Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935. The statute created machinery for the regulation of the price of soft coal, both that sold in interstate commerce and that sold "locally," and other machinery for the regulation of hours of labor and wages in the mines. The clauses of the act dealing with these two different matters were declared by the act itself to be separable so that the invalidity of the one set would not affect the validity of the other, but this strategy was ineffectual. A majority of the Court, speaking by Justice Sutherland, held that the act constituted one connected scheme of regulation, which, inasmuch as it invaded the reserved powers of the States over conditions of employment in productive industry, was violative of the Constitution. Justice Sutherland's opinion set out from Chief Justice Hughes' assertion in the Schechter case of the "fundamental" character of the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" effects, that is to say, from the doctrine of the Sugar Trust case. It then proceeded: "Much stress is put upon the evils which come from the struggle between employers and employees over the matter of wages, working conditions, the right of collective bargaining, etc., and the resulting strikes, curtailment and irregularity of production and effect on prices; and it is insisted that interstate commerce is greatly affected thereby. But . . . the conclusive answer is that the evils are all local evils over which the Federal Government has no legislative control. The relation of employer and employee is a local relation. At common law, it is one of the domestic relations. The wages are paid for the doing of local work. Working conditions are obviously local conditions. The employees are not engaged in or about commerce, but exclusively in producing a commodity. And the controversies and evils, which it is the object of the act to regulate and minimize, are local controversies and evils affecting local work undertaken to accomplish that local result. Such effect as they may have upon commerce, however extensive it may be, is secondary and indirect. An increase in the greatness of the effect adds to its importance. It does not alter its character."

The NIRA, however, was found to have several other constitutional infirmities besides its disregard, as illustrated by the Live Poultry Code, of the "fundamental" distinction between "direct" and "indirect" effects, namely, the delegation of standardless legislative power, the absence of any administrative procedural safeguards, the absence of judicial review, and the dominant role played by private groups in the general scheme of regulation.

Railroad Retirement Act.-Still pursuing the idea of protecting commerce and the labor engaged in it concurrently, Congress, by the Railroad Retirement Act of June 27, 1934,ordered the compulsory retirement of superannuated employees of interstate carriers, and provided that they be paid pensions out of a fund comprising compulsory contributions from the carriers and their present and future employees. In Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., however, a closely divided Court held this legislation to be in excess of Congress' power to regulate commerce and contrary to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Said Justice Roberts for the majority: "We feel bound to hold that a pension plan thus imposed is in no proper sense a regulation of the activity of interstate transportation. It is an attempt for social ends to impose by sheer fiat noncontractual incidents upon the relation of employer and employee, not as a rule or regulation of commerce and transportation between the States, but as a means of assuring a particular class of employees against old age dependency. This is neither a necessary nor an appropriate rule or regulation affecting the due fulfillment of the railroads' duty to serve the public in interstate transportation."

Chief Justice Hughes, speaking for the dissenters, contended, on the contrary, that "the morale of the employees [had] an important bearing upon the efficiency of the transportation service." He added: "The fundamental consideration which supports this type of legislation is that industry should take care of its human wastage, whether that is due to accident or age. That view cannot be dismissed as arbitrary or capricious. It is a reasoned conviction based upon abundant experience. The expression of that conviction in law is regulation. When expressed in the government of interstate carriers, with respect to their employees likewise engaged in interstate commerce, it is a regulation of that commerce. As such, so far as the subject matter is concerned, the commerce clause should be held applicable." Under subsequent legislation, an excise is levied on interstate carriers and their employees, while by separate but parallel legislation a fund is created in the Treasury out of which pensions are paid along the lines of the original plan. The constitutionality of this scheme appears to be taken for granted in Railroad Retirement Board v. Duquesne Warehouse Co.

National Labor Relations Act.-The case in which the Court reduced the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" effects to the vanishing point and thereby placed Congress in the position to regulate productive industry and labor relations in these industries was NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. Here the statute involved was the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which declared the right of workers to organize, forbade unlawful employer interference with this right, established procedures by which workers could choose exclusive bargaining representatives with which employers were required to bargain, and created a board to oversee all these processes.

The Court did uphold in Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917), a congressional settlement of a threatened rail strike through the enactment of an eight-hour day and a time-and-a-half for overtime for all interstate railway employees. The national emergency confronting the Nation was cited by the Court but with the implication that the power existed in more normal times, suggesting that Congress' powers were not as limited as some judicial decisions had indicated. Congress' enactment of the Railway Labor Act in 1926, 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., was sustained by a Court decision admitting the connection between interstate commerce and union membership as a substantial one. Texas & N.L.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548 (1930). A subsequent decision sustained the application of the Act to "back shop" employees of an interstate carrier who engaged in making heavy repairs on locomotives and cars withdrawn from service for long periods, the Court finding that the activities of these employees were related to interstate commerce. Virginian Ry. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515 (1937).

The Court, speaking through Chief Justice Hughes, upheld the Act and found the corporation to be subject to the Act. "The close and intimate effect," he said, "which brings the subject within the reach of federal power may be due to activities in relation to productive industry although the industry when separately viewed is local." Nor will it do to say that such effect is "indirect." Considering defendant's "far-flung activities," the effect of strife between it and its employees "would be immediate and [it] might be catastrophic. We are asked to shut our eyes to the plainest facts of our national life and to deal with the question of direct and indirect effects in an intellectual vacuum.... When industries organize themselves on a national scale, making their relation to interstate commerce the dominant factor in their activities, how can it be maintained that their industrial labor relations constitute a forbidden field into which Congress may not enter when it is necessary to protect interstate commerce from the paralyzing consequences of industrial war? We have often said that interstate commerce itself is a practical conception. It is equally true that interferences with that commerce must be appraised by a judgment that does not ignore actual experience."

While the Act was thus held to be within the constitutional powers of Congress in relation to a productive concern because the interruption of its business by strike "might be catastrophic," the decision was forthwith held to apply also to two minor concerns, and in a later case the Court stated specifically that the smallness of the volume of commerce affected in any particular case is not a material consideration. Subsequently, the act was declared to be applicable to a local retail auto dealer on the ground that he was an integral part of the manufacturer's national distribution system, to a labor dispute arising during alteration of a county courthouse because one-half of the cost-$225,000-was attributable to materials shipped from out-of-State, and to a dispute involving a retail distributor of fuel oil, all of whose sales were local, but who obtained the oil from a wholesaler who imported it from another State.

Indeed, "[t]his Court has consistently declared that in passing the National Labor Relations

Act, Congress intended to and did vest in the Board the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause." Thus, the Board has formulated jurisdictional standards which assume the requisite effect on interstate commerce from a prescribed dollar volume of business and these standards have been implicitly approved by the Court.

Fair Labor Standards Act.-In 1938, Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act. The measure prohibited not only the shipment in interstate commerce of goods manufactured by employees whose wages are less than the prescribed maximum but also the employment of workmen in the production of goods for such commerce at other than the prescribed wages and hours. Interstate commerce was defined by the act to mean "trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or from any State to any place outside thereof."

It was further provided that "for the purposes of this act an employee shall be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods [that is, for interstate commerce] if such employee was employed . . . in any process or occupation directly essential to the production thereof in any State." Sustaining an indictment under the act, a unanimous Court, speaking through Chief Justice Stone, said: "The motive and purpose of the present regulation are plainly to make effective the congressional conception of public policy that interstate commerce should not be made the instrument of competition in the distribution of goods produced under substandard labor conditions, which competition is injurious to the commerce and to the States from and to which the commerce flows." In support of the decision the Court invoked Chief Justice Marshall's reading of the necessary-and-proper clause in McCulloch v. Maryland and his reading of the commerce clause in Gibbons v. Ogden. Objections purporting to be based on the Tenth Amendment were met from the same point of view: "Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which provides: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and State governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new National Government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the States might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers."

Subsequent decisions of the Court took a very broad view of which employees should be covered by the Act, and in 1949 Congress to some degree narrowed the permissible range of coverage and disapproved some of the Court's decisions. But in 1961, with extensions in 1966, Congress itself expanded by several million persons the coverage of the Act, introducing the "enterprise" concept by which all employees in a business producing anything in commerce or affecting commerce were brought within the protection of the minimum wage-maximum hours standards. The "enterprise concept" was sustained by the Court in Maryland v. Wirtz. Justice Harlan for a unanimous Court on this issue found the extension entirely proper on the basis of two theories: one, a business' competitive position in commerce is determined in part by all its significant labor costs, and not just those costs attributable to its employees engaged in production in interstate commerce, and, two, labor peace and thus smooth functioning of interstate commerce was facilitated by the termination of substandard labor conditions affecting all employees and not just those actually engaged in interstate commerce.

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act.-After its initial frustrations, Congress returned to the task of bolstering agriculture by passing the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of June 3, 1937, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to fix the minimum prices of certain agricultural products, when the handling of such products occurs "in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or . . . directly burdens, obstructs or affects interstate or foreign commerce in such commodity or product thereof." In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., the Court sustained an order of the Secretary of Agriculture fixing the minimum prices to be paid to producers of milk in the Chicago "marketing area." The dairy company demurred to the regulation on the ground it applied to milk produced and sold intrastate. Sustaining the order, the Court said: "Congress plainly has power to regulate the price of milk distributed through the medium of interstate commerce . . . and it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective. The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the States. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.... It follows that no form of State activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power."

In Wickard v. Filburn, a still deeper penetration by Congress into the field of production was sustained. As amended by the act of 1941, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938regulated production even when not intended for commerce but wholly for consumption on the producer's farm. Sustaining this extension of the act, the Court pointed out that the effect of the statute was to support the market. "It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices." And it elsewhere stated: "Questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce. ...

The Court's recognition of the relevance of the economic effects in the application of the Commerce Clause . . . has made the mechanical application of legal formulas no longer feasible."

Acts of Congress Prohibiting Commerce

Foreign Commerce: Jefferson's Embargo.-"Jefferson's Embargo" of 1807-1808, which cut all trade with Europe, was attacked on the ground that the power to regulate commerce was the power to preserve it, not the power to destroy it. This argument was rejected by Judge Davis of the United States District Court for Massachusetts in the following words: "A national sovereignty is created [by the Constitution]. Not an unlimited sovereignty, but a sovereignty, as to the objects surrendered and specified, limited only by the qualification and restrictions, expressed in the Constitution. Commerce is one of those objects. The care, protection, management and control, of this great national concern, is, in my opinion, vested by the Constitution, in the Congress of the United States; and their power is sovereign, relative to commercial intercourse, qualified by the limitations and restrictions, expressed in that instrument, and by the treaty making power of the President and Senate....

Power to regulate, it is said, cannot be understood to give a power to annihilate. To this it may be replied, that the acts under consideration, though of very ample extent, do not operate as a prohibition of all foreign commerce. It will be admitted that partial prohibitions are authorized by the expression; and how shall the degree, or extent, of the prohibition be adjusted, but by the discretion of the National Government, to whom the subject appears to be committed? . . . The term does not necessarily include shipping or navigation; much less does it include the fisheries. Yet it never has contended, that they are not the proper objects of national regulation; and several acts of Congress have been made respecting them....

[Furthermore] if it be admitted that national regulations relative to commerce, may apply it as an instrument, and are not necessarily confined to its direct aid and advancement, the sphere of legislative discretion is, of course, more widely extended; and, in time of war, or of great impending peril, it must take a still more expanded range."

"Congress has power to declare war. It, of course, has power to prepare for war; and the time, the manner, and the measure, in the application of constitutional means, seem to be left to its wisdom and discretion.... Under the Confederation, . . . we find an express reservation to the State legislatures of the power to pass prohibitory commercial laws, and, as respects exportations, without any limitations. Some of them exercised this power....

Unless Congress, by the Constitution, possess the power in question, it still exists in the State legislatures-but this has never been claimed or pretended, since the adoption of the Federal Constitution; and the exercise of such a power by the States, would be manifestly inconsistent with the power, vested by the people in Congress, 'to regulate commerce.' Hence I infer, that the power, reserved to the States by the articles of Confederation, is surrendered to Congress, by the Constitution; unless we suppose, that, by some strange process, it has been merged or extinguished, and now exists no where."

Foreign Commerce: Protective Tariffs.-Tariff laws have customarily contained prohibitory provisions, and such provisions have been sustained by the Court under Congress' revenue powers and under its power to regulate foreign commerce. For the Court in Board of Trustees v. United States, in 1933, Chief Justice Hughes said: "The Congress may determine what articles may be imported into this country and the terms upon which importation is permitted. No one can be said to have a vested right to carry on foreign commerce with the United States.... It is true that the taxing power is a distinct power; that it is distinct from the power to regulate commerce.... It is also true that the taxing power embraces the power to lay duties. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. But because the taxing power is a distinct power and embraces the power to lay duties, it does not follow that duties may not be imposed in the exercise of the power to regulate commerce. The contrary is well established. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 202. 'Under the power to regulate foreign commerce Congress imposes duties on importations, give drawbacks, pass embargo and nonintercourse laws, and make all other regulations necessary to navigation, to the safety of passengers, and the protection of property.' Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449, 505. The laying of duties is 'a common means of executing the power." 2 Story on the Constitution, 1088."

Foreign Commerce: Banned Articles.-The forerunners of more recent acts excluding objectionable commodities from interstate commerce are the laws forbidding the importation of like commodities from abroad. This power Congress has exercised since 1842. In that year it forbade the importation of obscene literature or pictures from abroad. Six years, later it passed an act "to prevent the importation of spurious and adulterated drugs" and to provide a system of inspection to make the prohibition effective. Such legislation guarding against the importation of noxiously adulterated foods, drugs, or liquor has been on the statute books ever since. In 1887, the importation by Chinese nationals of smoking opium was prohibited, and subsequent statutes passed in 1909 and 1914 made it unlawful for anyone to import it. In 1897, Congress forbade the importation of any tea "inferior in purity, quality, and fitness for consumption" as compared with a legal standard. The Act was sustained in 1904, in the leading case of Buttfield v. Stranahan. In ²The Abby Dodge² an act excluding sponges taken by means of diving or diving apparatus from the waters of the Gulf of Mexico or Straits of Florida was sustained but construed as not applying to sponges taken from the territorial water of a State.

In Weber v. Freed, an act prohibiting the importation and interstate transportation of prize-fight films or of pictorial representation of prize fights was upheld. Chief Justice White grounded his opinion for a unanimous Court on the complete and total control over foreign commerce possessed by Congress, in contrast implicitly to the lesser power over interstate commerce. And in Brolan v. United States, the Court rejected as wholly inappropriate citation of cases dealing with interstate commerce on the question of Congress' power to prohibit foreign commerce. It has been earlier noted, however, that the purported distinction is one that the Court both previously to and subsequent to these opinions has rejected.

Interstate Commerce: Power to Prohibit Questioned.-The question whether Congress' power to regulate commerce "among the several States" embraced the power to prohibit it furnished the topic of one of the most protracted debates in the entire history of the Constitution's interpretation, a debate the final resolution of which in favor of congressional power is an event of first importance for the future of American federalism. The issue was as early as 1841 brought forward by Henry Clay, in an argument before the Court in which he raised the specter of an act of Congress forbidding the interstate slave trade. The debate was concluded ninety-nine years later by the decision in United States v. Darby, in which the Fair Labor Standards Act was sustained.

Interstate Commerce: National Prohibitions and State Police Power.-The earliest such acts were in the nature of quarantine regulations and usually dealt solely with interstate transportation. In 1884, the exportation or shipment in interstate commerce of livestock having any infectious disease was forbidden. In 1903, power was conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture to establish regulations to prevent the spread of such diseases through foreign or interstate commerce. In 1905, the same official was authorized to lay an absolute embargo or quarantine upon all shipments of cattle from one State to another when the public necessity might demand it. A statute passed in 1905 forbade the transportation in foreign and interstate commerce and the mails of certain varieties of moths, plant lice, and other insect pests injurious to plant crops, trees, and other vegetation. In 1912, a similar exclusion of diseased nursery stock was decreed, while by the same act and again by an act of 1917, the Secretary of Agriculture was invested with powers of quarantine on interstate commerce for the protection of plant life from disease similar to those above described for the prevention of the spread of animal disease. While the Supreme Court originally held federal quarantine regulations of this sort to be constitutionally inapplicable to intrastate shipments of livestock, on the ground that federal authority extends only to foreign and interstate commerce, this view has today been abandoned.

The Lottery Case.-The first case to come before the Court in which the issues discussed above were canvassed at all thoroughly was Champion v. Ames, involving the act of 1895 "for the suppression of lotteries." An earlier act excluding lottery tickets from the mails had been upheld in the case In re Rapier, on the proposition that Congress clearly had the power to see that the very facilities furnished by it were not put to bad use. But in the case of commerce, the facilities are not ordinarily furnished by the National Government, and the right to engage in foreign and interestate commerce comes from the Constitution itself or is anterior to it.

How difficult the Court found the question produced by the act of 1895, forbidding any person to bring within the United States or to cause to be "carried from one State to another" any lottery ticket, or an equivalent thereof, "for the purpose of disposing of the same," was shown by the fact that the case was argued three times before the Court and the fact that the Court's decision finally sustaining the act was a five-to-four decision. The opinion of the Court, on the other hand, prepared by Justice Harlan, marked an almost unqualified triumph at the time for the view that Congress' power to regulate commerce among the States included the power to prohibit it, especially to supplement and support state legislation enacted under the police power. Early in the opinion, extensive quotation is made from Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, with special stress upon the definition there given of the phrase "to regulate." Justice Johnson's assertion on the same occasion is also given: "The power of a sovereign State over commerce, . . . amounts to nothing more than a power to limit and restrain it at pleasure." Further along is quoted with evident approval Justice Bradley's statement in Brown v. Houston, that "[t] he power to regulate commerce among the several States is granted to Congress in terms as absolute as is the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations."

Following the wake of the Lottery Case, Congress repeatedly brought its prohibitory powers over interstate commerce and communications to the support of certain local policies of the States in the exercise of their reserved powers, thereby aiding them in the repression of a variety of acts and deeds objectionable to public morality. The conception of the Federal System on which the Court based its validation of this legislation was stated by it in 1913 in sustaining the Mann "White Slave" Act in the following words: "Our dual form of government has its perplexities, State and Nation having different spheres of jurisdiction . . . but it must be kept in mind that we are one people; and the powers reserved to the States and those conferred on the Nation are adapted to be exercised, whether independently or concurrently, to promote the general welfare, material, and moral." At the same time, the Court made it plain that in prohibiting commerce among the States, Congress was equally free to support state legislative policy or to devise a policy of its own. "Congress," it said, "may exercise this authority in aid of the policy of the State, if it sees fit to do so. It is equally clear that the policy of Congress acting independently of the States may induce legislation without reference to the particular policy or law of any given State. Acting within the authority conferred by the Constitution it is for Congress to determine what legislation will attain its purpose. The control of Congress over interstate commerce is not to be limited by State laws."

In Brooks v. United States, the Court sustained the National Motor Vehicle Theft Actas a measure protective of owners of automobiles; that is, of interests in "the State of origin." The statute was designed to repress automobile motor thefts, notwithstanding that such thefts antedate the interstate transportation of the article stolen. Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Taft, at the outset, stated the general proposition that "Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin." Noting "the radical change in transportation" brought about by the automobile, and the rise of "[e]laborately organized conspiracies for the theft of automobiles . . . and their sale or other disposition" in another jurisdiction from the owner's, the Court concluded that such activity "is a gross misuse of interstate commerce. Congress may properly punish such interstate transportation by anyone with knowledge of the theft, because of its harmful result and its defeat of the property rights of those whose machines against their will are taken into other jurisdictions." The fact that stolen vehicles were "harmless" and did not spread harm to persons in other States on this occasion was not deemed to present any obstacle to the exercise of the regulatory power of Congress.

The Darby Case.-In sustaining the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1941, the Court expressly overruled Hammer v. Dagenhart. "The distinction on which the [latter case] . . . was rested that Congressional power to prohibit interstate commerce is limited to articles which in themselves have some harmful or deleterious property-a distinction which was novel when made and unsupported by any provision of the Constitution-has long since been abandoned.... The thesis of the opinion that the motive of the prohibition or its effect to control in some measure the use or production within the States of the article thus excluded from the commerce can operate to deprive the regulation of its constitutional authority has long since ceased to have force.... The conclusion is inescapable that Hammer v. Dagenhart, was a departure from the principles which have prevailed in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause both before and since the decision and that such vitality, as a precedent, as it then had has long since been exhausted. It should be and now is overruled."

The Commerce Clause as a Source of National Police Power

The Court has several times expressly noted that Congress' exercise of power under the commerce clause is akin to the police power exercised by the States. It should follow, therefore, that Congress may achieve results unrelated to purely commercial aspects of commerce, and this result in fact has often been accomplished. Paralleling and contributing to this movement is the virtual disappearance of the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce.

Is There an Intrastate Barrier to Congress' Commerce Power.-Not only has there been legislative advancement and judicial acquiescence in commerce clause jurisprudence, but the melding of the Nation into one economic union has been more than a little responsible for the reach of Congress' power. "The volume of interstate commerce and the range of commonly accepted objects of government regulation have . . . expanded considerably in the last 200 years, and the regulatory authority of Congress has expanded along with them. As interstate commerce has become ubiquitous, activities once considered purely local have come to have effects on the national economy, and have accordingly come within the scope of Congress' commerce power."

Congress' commerce power has been characterized as having three, or sometimes four, very interrelated principles of decision, some old, some of recent vintage. The Court in 1995 described "three broad categories of activities that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i. e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."

First, the commerce power attaches to the crossing of state lines, and Congress has validly legislated to protect interstate travelers from harm, to prevent such travelers from being deterred in the exercise of interstate traveling, and to prevent them from being burdened. Many of the 1964 public accommodations law applications have been premised on the point that larger establishments do serve interstate travelers and that even small stores, restaurants, and the like may serve interstate travelers, and, therefore, it is permissible to regulate them to prevent or deter discrimination.

Second, it may not be persons who cross state lines but some object that will or has crossed state lines, and the regulation of a purely intrastate activity may be premised on the presence of the object. Thus, the public accommodations law reached small establishments that served food and other items that had been purchased from interstate channels.Congress has validly penalized convicted felons, who had no other connection to interstate commerce, for possession or receipt of firearms, which had been previously transported in interstate commerce independently of any activity by the two felons. This reach is not of newly-minted origin. In United States v. Sullivan, the Court sustained a conviction of misbranding, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Sullivan, a Columbus, Georgia, druggist had bought a properly labeled 1000-tablet bottle of sulfathiazole from an Atlanta wholesaler. The bottle had been shipped to the Atlanta wholesaler by a Chicago supplier six months earlier. Three months after Sullivan received the bottle, he made two retail sales of 12 tablets each, placing the tablets in boxes not labeled in strict accordance with the law. Upholding the conviction, the Court concluded that there was no question of "the constitutional power of Congress under the commerce clause to regulate the branding of articles that have completed an interstate shipment and are being held for future sales in purely local or intrastate commerce."

Third, Congress' power reaches not only transactions or actions that occasion the crossing of state or national boundaries but extends as well to activities that, though local, "affect" commerce, a combination of the commerce power enhanced by the necessary and proper clause. The seminal case, of course, is Wickard v. Filburn, sustaining federal regulation of a crop of wheat grown on a farm and intended solely for home consumption. The premise was that if it were never marketed, it supplied a need otherwise to be satisfied only in the market, and that if prices rose it might be induced onto the market. "Even activity that is purely intrastate in character may be regulated by Congress, where the activity, combined with like conduct by others similarly situated, affects commerce among the States or with foreign nations." Coverage under federal labor and wage-and-hour laws after the 1930s showed the reality of this doctrine.

In upholding federal regulation of strip mining, the Court demonstrated the breadth of the "affects" standard. One case dealt with statutory provisions designed to preserve "prime farmland." The trial court had determined that the amount of such land disturbed annually amounted to 0.006% of the total prime farmland acreage in the Nation and, thus, that the impact on commerce was "infinitesimal" or "trivial." Disagreeing, the Court said: "A court may invalidate legislation enacted under the Commerce Clause only if it is clear that there is no rational basis for a congressional finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce, or that there is no reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends." Moreover, "[t]he pertinent inquiry therefore is not how much commerce is involved but whether Congress could rationally conclude that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce." In a companion case, the Court reiterated that "[t] he denomination of an activity as a 'local' or 'intrastate' activity does not resolve the question whether Congress may regulate it under the Commerce Clause. As previously noted, the commerce power 'extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce.'" Judicial review is narrow. Congress' determination of an "effect" must be deferred to if it is rational, and Congress must have acted reasonably in choosing the means.

Fourth, a still more potent engine of regulation has been the expansion of the class-of- activities standard, which began in the "affecting" cases. In Perez v. United States, the Court sustained the application of a federal "loan-sharking" law to a local culprit. The Court held that, although individual loan-sharking activities might be intrastate in nature, still it was within Congress' power to determine that the activity was within a class the activities of which did affect interstate commerce, thus affording Congress the opportunity to regulate the entire class. While the Perez Court and the congressional findings emphasized that loan-sharking was generally part of organized crime operating on a national scale and that loan-sharking was commonly used to finance organized crime's national operations, subsequent cases do not depend upon a defensible assumption of relatedness in the class.

Thus, the Court applied the federal arson statute to the attempted "torching" of a defendant's two-unit apartment building. The Court merely pointed to the fact that the rental of real estate "unquestionably" affects interstate commerce and that "the local rental of an apartment unit is merely an element of a much broader commercial market in real estate." The apparent test of whether aggregation of local activity can be said to affect commerce was made clear next in an antitrust context. Allowing the continuation of an antitrust suit challenging a hospital's exclusion of a surgeon from practice in the hospital, the Court observed that in order to establish the required jurisdictional nexus with commerce, the appropriate focus is not on the actual effects of the conspiracy but instead is on the possible consequences for the affected market if the conspiracy is successful. The required nexus in this case was sufficient because competitive significance is to be measured by a general evaluation of the impact of the restraint on other participants and potential participants in the market from which the surgeon was being excluded.

For the first time in almost sixty years, the Court invalidated a federal law as exceeding Congress' authority under the commerce clause. The statute was a provision making it a federal offense to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court reviewed the doctrinal development of the commerce clause, especially the effects and aggregation tests, and reaffirmed that it is the Court's responsibility to decide whether a rational basis exists for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affects interstate commerce when a law is challenged. The Court identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. "First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.... Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.... Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, . . . i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."

Clearly, said the Court, the criminalized activity did not implicate the first two categories. As for the third, the Court found an insufficient connection. First, a wide variety of regulations of "intrastate economic activity" has been sustained where an activity substantially affects interstate commerce. But the statute being challenged, the Court continued, was a criminal law that had nothing to do with "commerce" or with "any sort of economic enterprise." Therefore, it could not be sustained under precedents "upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce." The provision did not contain a "jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce." The existence of such a section, the Court implied, would have saved the constitutionality of the provision by requiring a showing of some connection to commerce in each particular case. Finally, the Court rejected the arguments of the Government and of the dissent that there existed a sufficient connection between the offense and interstate commerce. At base, the Court's concern was that accepting the attenuated connection arguments presented would result in the evisceration of federalism. "Under the theories that the Government presents . . . it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate."

Whether Lopez bespoke a Court determination to police more closely Congress' exercise of its commerce power, so that it would be a noteworthy case, or whether it was rather a "warning shot" across the bow of Congress, urging more restraint in the exercise of power or more care in the drafting of laws, was not immediately clear. The Court's decision five years later in United States v. Morrison, however, suggests that stricter scrutiny of Congress's commerce power exercises is the chosen path, at least for legislation that falls outside the area of economic regulation. The Court will no longer defer, via rational basis review, to every congressional finding of substantial effects on interstate commerce, but instead will examine the nature of the asserted nexus to commerce, and will also consider whether a holding of constitutionality is consistent with its view of the commerce power as being a limited power that cannot be allowed to displace all exercise of state police powers.

In Morrison the Court applied Lopez principles to invalidate a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that created a federal cause of action for victims of gender- motivated violence. Gender-motivated crimes of violence "are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity," the Court explained, and there was allegedly no precedent for upholding commerce-power regulation of intrastate activity that was not economic in nature. The provision, like the invalidated provision of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, contained no jurisdictional element tying the regulated violence to interstate commerce. Unlike the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the VAWA did contain "numerous" congressional findings about the serious effects of gender-motivated crimes, but the Court rejected reliance on these findings. "The existence of congressional findings is not sufficient, by itself, to sustain the constitutionality of Commerce Clause legislation.... [The issue of constitutionality] is ultimately a judicial rather than a legislative question, and can be settled finally only by this Court." The problem with the VAWA findings was that they "relied heavily" on the reasoning rejected in Lopez - the "but-for causal chain from the initial occurrence of crime . . . to every attenuated effect upon interstate commerce." As the Court had explained in Lopez, acceptance of this reasoning would eliminate the distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, and would allow Congress to regulate virtually any activity, and basically any crime. Accordingly, the Court "reject[ed] the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce." Resurrecting the dual federalism dichotomy, the Court could find "no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims."

Civil Rights.-It had been generally established some time ago that Congress had power under the commerce clause to prohibit racial discrimination in the use of the channels of commerce. The power under the clause to forbid discrimination within the States was firmly and unanimously sustained by the Court when Congress in 1964 enacted a comprehensive measure outlawing discrimination because of race or color in access to public accommodations with a requisite connection to interstate commerce. Hotels and motels were declared covered, that is, declared to "affect commerce," if they provided lodging to transient guests; restaurants, cafeterias, and the like, were covered only if they served or offered to serve interstate travelers or if a substantial portion of the food which they served had moved in commerce. The Court sustained the Act as applied to a downtown Atlanta motel which did serve interstate travelers, to an out-ofthe-way restaurant in Birmingham that catered to a local clientele but which had spent 46 percent of its previous year's out-go on meat from a local supplier who had procured it from out-of- state, and to a rurally-located amusement area operating a snack bar and other facilities, which advertised in a manner likely to attract an interstate clientele and that served food a substantial portion of which came from outside the State.

Writing for the Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel and McClung, Justice Clark denied that Congress was disabled from regulating the operations of motels or restaurants because those operations may be, or may appear to be, "local" in character. "[T]he power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the States of origin and destination, which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce."

But, it was objected, Congress is regulating on the basis of moral judgments and not to facilitate commercial intercourse. "That Congress [may legislate] . . . against moral wrongs . . . rendered its enactments no less valid. In framing Title II of this Act Congress was also dealing with what it considered a moral problem. But that fact does not detract from the overwhelming evidence of the disruptive effect that racial discrimination has had on commercial intercourse. It was this burden which empowered Congress to enact appropriate legislation, and, given this basis for the exercise of its power, Congress was not restricted by the fact that the particular obstruction to interstate commerce with which it was dealing was also deemed a moral and social wrong." The evidence did, in fact, noted the Justice, support Congress' conclusion that racial discrimination impeded interstate travel by more than 20 million black citizens, which was an impairment Congress could legislate to remove.

The commerce clause basis for civil rights legislation in respect to private discrimination was important because of the understanding that Congress' power to act under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments was limited to official discrimination. The Court's subsequent determination that Congress is not necessarily so limited in its power reduces greatly the importance of the commerce clause in this area.

Criminal Law.-Federal criminal jurisdiction based on the commerce power, and frequently combined with the postal power, has historically been an auxiliary criminal jurisdiction. That is, Congress has made federal crimes of acts that constitute state crimes on the basis of some contact, however tangential, with a matter subject to congressional regulation even though the federal interest in the acts may be minimal. Examples of this type of federal criminal statute abound, including the Mann Act designed to outlaw interstate white slavery, the Dyer Act punishing interstate transportation of stolen automobiles, and the Lindbergh Law punishing interstate transportation of kidnapped persons. But, just as in other areas, Congress has passed beyond a proscription of the use of interstate facilities in the commission of a crime, it has in the criminal law area expanded the scope of its jurisdiction. Typical of this expansion is a statute making it a federal offense to "in any way or degree obstruct . . . delay . . . or affect . . . commerce . . . by robbery or extortion ...." With the expansion of the scope of the reach of "commerce" the statute potentially could reach crimes involving practically all business concerns, although it appears to be used principally against organized crime.

To date, the most far-reaching measure to be sustained by the Court has been the "loansharking" prohibition of the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The title affirmatively finds that extortionate credit transactions affect interstate commerce because loan sharks are in a class largely controlled by organized crime with a substantially adverse effect on interstate commerce. Upholding the statute, the Court found that though individual loan- sharking activities may be intrastate in nature, still it is within Congress' power to determine that it was within a class the activities of which did affect interstate commerce, thus affording Congress power to regulate the entire class.

The Commerce Clause as a Restraint on State Powers

Doctrinal Background

The grant of power to Congress over commerce, unlike that of power to levy customs duties, the power to raise armies, and some others, is unaccompanied by correlative restrictions on state power. This circumstance does not, however, of itself signify that the States were expected to participate in the power thus granted Congress, subject only to the operation of the supremacy clause. As Hamilton pointed out in The Federalist, while some of the powers which are vested in the National Government admit of their "concurrent" exercise by the States, others are of their very nature "exclusive," and hence render the notion of a like power in the States "contradictory and repugnant." As an example of the latter kind of power, Hamilton mentioned the power of Congress to pass a uniform naturalization law. Was the same principle expected to apply to the power over foreign and interstate commerce?

Unquestionably one of the great advantages anticipated from the grant to Congress of power over commerce was that state interferences with trade, which had become a source of sharp discontent under the Articles of Confederation, would be thereby brought to an end. As Webster stated in his argument for appellant in Gibbons v. Ogden: "The prevailing motive was to regulate commerce; to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences, resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law." In other words, the constitutional grant was itself a regulation of commerce in the interest of uniformity.

That, however, the commerce clause, unimplemented by congressional legislation, took from the States any and all power over foreign and interstate commerce was by no means conceded and was, indeed, counterintuitive, considering the extent of state regulation that previously existed before the Constitution. Moreover, legislation by Congress regulative of any particular phase of commerce would raise the question whether the States were entitled to fill the remaining gaps, if not by virtue of a "concurrent" power over interstate and foreign commerce, then by virtue of "that immense mass of legislation" as Marshall termed it, "which embraces everything within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the general government," in a word, the "police power."

The text and drafting record of the commerce clause fails, therefore, without more ado, to settle the question of what power is left to the States to adopt legislation regulating foreign or interstate commerce in greater or lesser measure. To be sure, in cases of flat conflict between an act or acts of Congress regulative of such commerce and a state legislative act or acts, from whatever state power ensuing, the act of Congress is today recognized, and was recognized by Marshall, as enjoying an unquestionable supremacy. But suppose, first, that Congress has passed no act, or second, that its legislation does not clearly cover the ground traversed by previously enacted state legislation. What rules then apply? Since Gibbons v. Ogden, both of these situations have confronted the Court, especially as regards interstate commerce, hundreds of times, and in meeting them the Court has, first, determined that it has power to decide when state power is validly exercised, and, second, it has coined or given currency to numerous formulas, some of which still guide, even when they do not govern, its judgment.

Thus, it has been judicially established that the commerce clause is not only a 'positive' grant of power to Congress, but it is also a 'negative' constraint upon the States; that is, the doctrine of the 'dormant' commerce clause, though what is dormant is the congressional exercise of the power, not the clause itself, under which the Court may police state taxation and regulation of interstate commerce, became well established.

Webster, in Gibbons, argued that a state grant of a monopoly to operate steamships between New York and New Jersey not only contravened federal navigation laws but violated the commerce clause as well, because that clause conferred an exclusive power upon Congress to make the rules for national commerce, although he conceded that the grant to regulate interstate commerce was so broad as to reach much that the States had formerly had jurisdiction over, the courts must be reasonable in interpretation. But because he thought the state law was in conflict with the federal legislation, Chief Justice Marshall was not compelled to pass on Webster's arguments, although in dicta he indicated his considerable sympathy with them and suggested that the power to regulate commerce between the States might be an exclusively federal power.

Chief Justice Marshall originated the concept of the "dormant commerce clause" in Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., although in dicta. Attacked before the Court was a state law authorizing the building of a dam across a navigable creek, and it was claimed the law was in conflict with the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. Rejecting the challenge, Marshall said that the state act could not be "considered as repugnant to the [federal] power to regulate commerce in its dormant state[.]"

Returning to the subject in Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, the Court, upholding a state law that required ships to engage a local pilot when entering or leaving the port of Philadelphia, enunciated a doctrine of partial federal exclusivity. According to Justice Curtis' opinion, the state act was valid on the basis of a distinction between those subjects of commerce which "imperatively demand a single uniform rule" operating throughout the country and those which "as imperatively" demand "that diversity which alone can meet the local necessities of navigation," that is to say, of commerce. As to the former, the Court held Congress' power to be "exclusive," as to the latter, it held that the States enjoyed a power of "concurrent legislation." The Philadelphia pilot-age requirement was of the latter kind.

Thus, the contention that the federal power to regulate interstate commerce was exclusive of state power yielded to a rule of partial exclusivity. Among the welter of such cases, the first actually to strike down a state law solely on commerce clause grounds was the State Freight Tax Case. The question before the Court was the validity of a nondiscriminatory statute that required every company transporting freight within the State, with certain exceptions, to pay a tax at specified rates on each ton of freight carried by it. Opining that a tax upon freight, or any other article of commerce, transported from State to State is a regulation of commerce among the States and, further, that the transportation of merchandise or passengers through a State or from State to State was a subject that required uniform regulation, the Court held the tax in issue to be repugnant to the commerce clause.

Whether exclusive or partially exclusive, however, the commerce clause as a restraint upon state exercises of power, absent congressional action, received no sustained justification or explanation; the clause, of course, empowers Congress to regulate commerce among the States, not the courts. Often, as in Cooley, and later cases, the Court stated or implied that the rule was imposed by the commerce clause. In Welton v. Missouri, the Court attempted to suggest a somewhat different justification. Challenged was a state statute that required a "peddler's" license for merchants selling goods that came from other states, but that required no license if the goods were produced in the State. Declaring that uniformity of commercial regulation is necessary to protect articles of commerce from hostile legislation and that the power asserted by the State belonged exclusively to Congress, the Court observed that "[t]he fact that Congress has not seen fit to prescribe any specific rules to govern inter-State commerce does not affect the question. Its inaction on this subject . . . is equivalent to a declaration that inter-State commerce shall be free and untrammelled."

It has been evidently of little importance to the Court to explain. "Whether or not this long recognized distribution of power between the national and state governments is predicated upon the implications of the commerce clause itself . . . or upon the presumed intention of Congress, where Congress has not spoken . . . the result is the same." Thus, "[f]or a hundred years it has been accepted constitutional doctrine . . . that . . . where Congress has not acted, this Court, and not the state legislature, is under the commerce clause the final arbiter of the competing demands of state and national interests."

Two other justifications can be found throughout the Court's decisions, but they do not explain why the Court is empowered under a grant of power to Congress to police state regulatory and taxing decisions. For example, in Welton v. Missouri, the statute under review, as observed several times by the Court, was clearly discriminatory as between instate and interstate commerce, but that point was not sharply drawn as the constitutional fault of the law. That the commerce clause had been motivated by the Framers' apprehensions about state protectionism has been frequently noted. A relatively recent theme is that the Framers desired to create a national area of free trade, so that unreasonable burdens on interstate commerce violate the clause in and of themselves.

Nonetheless, the power of the Court is established and is freely exercised. No reservations can be discerned in the opinions for the Court. Individual Justices, to be sure, have urged renunciation of the power and remission to Congress for relief sought by litigants. That has not been the course followed.

The State Proprietary Activity Exception.-In a case of first impression, the Court held unaffected by the commerce clause- "the kind of action with which the Commerce Clause is not concerned"-a Maryland bounty scheme by which the State paid scrap processors for each "hulk" automobile destroyed. As first enacted, the bounty plan did not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state processors, but it was subsequently amended to operate in such a manner that out-of-state processors were substantially disadvantaged. The Court held that where a State enters into the market itself as a purchaser, in effect, of a potential article of interstate commerce, it does not, in creating a burden upon that commerce by restricting its trade to its own citizens or businesses within the State, violate the commerce clause.

Affirming and extending somewhat this precedent, the Court held that a State operating a cement plant could in times of shortage (and presumably at any time) confine the sale of cement by the plant to residents of the State. "The Commerce Clause responds principally to state taxes and regulatory measures impeding free private trade in the national marketplace. ... There is no indication of a constitutional plan to limit the ability of the States themselves to operate freely in the free market." It is yet unclear how far this concept of the State as market participant rather than market regulator will be extended.

Congressional Authorization of Impermissible State Action.-The Supreme Court has heeded the lesson that was administered to it by the Act of Congress of August 31, 1852,which pronounced the Wheeling Bridge "a lawful structure," thereby setting aside the Court's determination to the contrary earlier the same year. The lesson, subsequently observed the Court, is that "[i]t is Congress, and not the Judicial Department, to which the Constitution has given the power to regulate commerce." Similarly, when in the late eighties and the early nineties statewide prohibition laws began making their appearance, Congress again approved state laws the Court had found to violate the dormant commerce clause.

The Court seized upon a previously rejected dictum of Chief Justice Marshall and began applying it as a brake on the operation of such laws with respect to interstate commerce in intoxicants, which the Court denominated "legitimate articles of commerce." While holding that a State was entitled to prohibit the manufacture and sale within its limits of intoxicants, even for an outside market, manufacture being no part of commerce, it contemporaneously laid down the rule, in Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co.,that, so long as Congress remained silent in the matter, a State lacked the power, even as part and parcel of a program of statewide prohibition of the traffic in intoxicants, to prevent the shipment into it of intoxicants from a sister State. This holding was soon followed by another to the effect that, so long as Congress remained silent, a State had no power to prevent the sale in the original package of liquors introduced from another State. The effect of the latter decision was soon overcome by an act of Congress, the so-called Wilson Act, repealing its alleged silence, but the Bowman decision still stood, the act in question being interpreted by the Court not to subject liquors from sister States to local authority until their arrival in the hands of the person to whom consigned. Not until 1913 was the effect of the decision in the Bowman case fully nullified by the Webb-Kenyon Act,which placed intoxicants entering a State from another State under the control of the former for all purposes whatsoever.

Less than a year after the ruling in United States v. SouthEastern Underwriters Ass'n,that insurance transactions across state lines constituted interstate commerce, thereby logically establishing their immunity from discriminatory state taxation, Congress passed the McCarran Act authorizing state regulation and taxation of the insurance business. In Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, a statute of South Carolina that imposed on foreign insurance companies, as a condition of their doing business in the State, an annual tax of three percent of premiums from business done in South Carolina, while imposing no similar tax on local corporations, was sustained. "Obviously," said Justice Rutledge for the Court, "Congress' purpose was broadly to give support to the existing and future State systems for regulating and taxing the business of insurance. This was done in two ways:"

"One was by removing obstructions which might be thought to flow from its own power, whether dormant or exercised, except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act itself or in future legislation. The other was by declaring expressly and affirmatively that continued State regulation and taxation of this business is in the public interest and that the business and all who engage in it 'shall be subject to' the laws of the several States in these respects.... The power of Congress over commerce exercised entirely without reference to coordinated action of the States is not restricted, except as the Constitution expressly provides, by any limitation which forbids it to discriminate against interstate commerce and in favor of local trade. Its plenary scope enables Congress not only to promote but also to prohibit interstate commerce, as it has done frequently and for a great variety of reasons....

This broad authority Congress may exercise alone, subject to those limitations, or in conjunction with coordinated action by the States, in which case limitations imposed for the preservation of their powers become inoperative and only those designed to forbid action altogether by any power or combination of powers in our governmental system remain effective."

Thus, it is now well established that "[w]hen Congress so chooses, state actions which it plainly authorizes are invulnerable to constitutional attack under the Commerce Clause."But the Court requires congressional intent to permit otherwise impermissible state actions to "be unmistakably clear." The fact that federal statutes and regulations had restricted commerce in timber harvested from national forest lands in Alaska was, therefore, "insufficient indicium" that Congress intended to authorize the State to apply a similar policy for timber harvested from state lands. The rule requiring clear congressional approval for state burdens on commerce was said to be necessary in order to strengthen the likelihood that decisions favoring one section of the country over another are in fact "collective decisions" made by Congress rather than unilateral choices imposed on unrepresented out-of-state interests by individual States. And Congress must be plain as well when the issue is not whether it has exempted a state action from the commerce clause but whether it has taken the less direct form of reduction in the level of scrutiny.

State Taxation and Regulation: The Old Law

Although in previous editions of this volume considerable attention was paid to the development and circuitous paths of the law of the negative commerce clause, the value of this exegesis was doubtlessly quite limited. The Court itself has admitted that its "some three hundred full-dress opinions" as of 1959 have not resulted in "consistent or reconcilable" doctrine but rather in something more resembling a "quagmire." Although many of the principles still applicable in constitutional law may be found in the older cases, in fact the Court has worked a revolution in this area, though at different times for taxation and for regulation. Thus, in this section we summarize the "old" law and then deal more fully with the "modern" law of the negative commerce clause.

General Considerations.-The task of drawing the line between state power and the commercial interest has proved a comparatively simple one in the field of foreign commerce, the two things being in great part territorially distinct. With "commerce among the States" affairs are very different. Interstate commerce is conducted in the interior of the country, by persons and corporations that are ordinarily engaged also in local business; its usual incidents are acts that, if unconnected with commerce among the States, would fall within the State's powers of police and taxation, while the things it deals in and the instruments by which it is carried on comprise the most ordinary subject matter of state power. In this field, the Court consequently has been unable to rely upon sweeping solutions. To the contrary, its judgments have often been fluctuating and tentative, even contradictory, and this is particularly the case with respect to the infringement of interstate commerce by the state taxing power.

Taxation.-The leading case dealing with the relation of the States' taxing power to interstate commerce, the case in which the Court first struck down a state tax as violative of the commerce clause, was the State Freight Tax Case. Before the Court was the validity of a Pennsylvania statute that required every company transporting freight within the State, with certain exceptions, to pay a tax at specified rates on each ton of freight carried by it. The Court's reasoning was forthright. Transportation of freight constitutes commerce. A tax upon freight transported from one State to another effects a regulation of interstate commerce. Under the Cooley doctrine, whenever the subject of a regulation of commerce is in its nature of national interest or admits of one uniform system or plan of regulation, that subject is within the exclusive regulating control of Congress.Transportation of passengers or merchandise through a State, or from one State to another, is of this nature. Hence, a state law imposing a tax upon freight, taken up within the State and transported out of it or taken up outside the State and transported into it, violates the commerce clause.

The principle thus asserted, that a State may not tax interstate commerce, confronted the principle that a State may tax all purely domestic business within its borders and all property "within its jurisdiction." Inasmuch as most large concerns prosecute both an interstate and a domestic business, while the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the pecuniary returns from such commerce are ordinarily property within the jurisdiction of some State or other, the task before the Court was to determine where to draw the line between the immunity claimed by interstate business, on the one hand, and the prerogatives claimed by local power on the other. In the State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts Case,decided the same day as the State Freight Tax Case, the issue was a tax upon gross receipts of all railroads chartered by the State, part of the receipts having been derived from interstate transportation of the same freight that had been held immune from tax in the first case. If the latter tax were regarded as a tax on interstate commerce, it too would fall. But to the Court, the tax on gross receipts of an interstate transportation company was not a tax on commerce. "[I]t is not everything that affects commerce that amounts to a regulation of it, within the meaning of the Constitution." A gross receipts tax upon a railroad company, which concededly affected commerce, was not a regulation "directly. Very manifestly it is a tax upon the railroad company.... That its ultimate effect may be to increase the cost of transportation must be admitted.... Still it is not a tax upon transportation, or upon commerce...."

Insofar as there is a distinction between these two cases, the Court drew it in part on the basis of Cooley, that some subjects embraced within the meaning of commerce demand uniform, national regulation, while other similar subjects permit of diversity of treatment, until Congress acts, and in part on the basis of a concept of a "direct" tax on interstate commerce, which was impermissible, and an "indirect" tax, which was permissible until Congress acted. Confusingly, the two concepts were sometimes conflated, sometimes treated separately. In any event, the Court itself was clear that interstate commerce could not be taxed at all, even if the tax was a nondiscriminatory levy applied alike to local commerce. "Thus, the States cannot tax interstate commerce, either by laying the tax upon the business which constitutes such commerce or the privilege of engaging in it, or upon the receipts, as such, derived from it . . . ; or upon persons or property in transit in interstate commerce." However, some taxes imposed only an "indirect" burden and were sustained; property taxes and taxes in lieu of property taxes applied to all businesses, including instrumentalies of interstate commerce, were sustained. A good rule of thumb in these cases is that taxation was sustained if the tax was imposed on some local, rather than an interstate, activity or if the tax was exacted before interstate movement had begun or after it had ended.

An independent basis for invalidation was that the tax was discriminatory, that its impact was intentionally or unintentionally felt by interstate commerce and not by local, perhaps in pursuit of parochial interests. Many of the early cases actually involving discriminatory taxation were decided on the basis of the impermissibility of taxing interstate commerce at all, but the category was soon clearly delineated as a separate ground (and one of the most important today).

Following the Great Depression and under the leadership of Justice, and later Chief Justice, Stone, the Court attempted to move away from the principle that interstate commerce may not be taxed and reliance on the direct-indirect distinction. Instead, a state or local levy would be voided only if in the opinion of the Court it created a risk of multiple taxation for interstate commerce not felt by local commerce. It became much more important to the validity of a tax that it be apportioned to an interstate company's activities within the taxing State, so as to reduce the risk of multiple taxation. But, just as the Court had achieved constancy in the area of regulation, it reverted to the older doctrines in the taxation area and reiterated that interstate commerce may not be taxed at all, even by a properly apportioned levy, and re-asserted the direct-indirect distinction. The stage was set, following a series of cases in which through formalistic reasoning the States were permitted to evade the Court's precedents, for the formulation of a more realistic doctrine.

Regulation.-Much more diverse were the cases dealing with regulation by the state and local governments. Taxation was one thing, the myriad approaches and purposes of regulations another. Generally speaking, if the state action was perceived by the Court to be a regulation of interstate commerce itself, it was deemed to impose a "direct" burden on interstate commerce and impermissible. If the Court saw it as something other than a regulation of interstate commerce, it was considered only to "affect" interstate commerce or to impose only an "indirect" burden on it in the proper exercise of the police powers of the States. But the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" burdens was often perceptible only to the Court.

A corporation's status as a foreign entity did not immunize it from state requirements, conditioning its admission to do a local business, to obtain a local license, and to furnish relevant information as well as to pay a reasonable fee. But no registration was permitted of an out-of-state corporation, the business of which in the host State was purely interstate in character. Neither did the Court permit a State to exclude from the its courts a corporation engaging solely in interstate commerce because of a failure to register and to qualify to do business in that State.

Interstate transportation brought forth hundreds of cases. State regulation of trains operating across state lines resulted in divergent rulings. It was early held improper for States to prescribe charges for transportation of persons and freight on the basis that the regulation must be uniform and thus could not be left to the States. The Court deemed "reasonable" and therefore constitutional many state regulations requiring a fair and adequate service for its inhabitants by railway companies conducting interstate service within its borders, as long as there was no unnecessary burden on commerce. A marked tolerance for a class of regulations that arguably furthered public safety was long exhibited by the Court,even in instances in which the safety connection was tenuous. Of particular controversy were "full-crew" laws, represented as safety measures, that were attacked by the companies as "feather-bedding" rules.

Similarly, motor vehicle regulations have met mixed fates. Basically, it has always been recognized that States, in the interest of public safety and conservation of public highways, may enact and enforce comprehensive licensing and regulation of motor vehicles using its facilities. Indeed, States were permitted to regulate many of the local activities of interstate firms and thus the interstate operations, in pursuit of these interests. Here, too, safety concerns became overriding objects of deference, even in doubtful cases. In regard to navigation, which had given rise to Gibbons v. Ogden and Cooley, the Court generally upheld much state regulation on the basis that the activities were local and did not demand uniform rules.

As a general rule, during this time, although the Court did not permit States to regulate a purely interstate activity or prescribe prices for purely interstate transactions, it did sustain a great deal of price and other regulation imposed prior to or subsequent to the travel in interstate commerce of goods produced for such commerce or received from such commerce. For example, decisions late in the period upheld state price-fixing schemes applied to goods intended for interstate commerce.

However, the States always had an obligation to act nondiscriminatorily. Just as in the taxing area, regulation that was parochially oriented, to protect local producers or industries, for instance, was not evaluated under ordinary standards but subjected to practically per se invalidation. The mirror image of Welton v. Missouri, the tax case, was Minnesota v. Barber, in which the Court invalidated a facially neutral law that in its practical effect discriminated against interstate commerce and in favor of local commerce. The law required fresh meat sold in the State to have been inspected by its own inspectors with 24 hours of slaughter. Thus, meat slaughtered in other States was excluded from the Minnesota market. The principle of the case has a long pedigree of application. State protectionist regulation on behalf of local milk producers has occasioned judicial censure. Thus, in Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., the Court had before it a complex state price- fixing scheme for milk, in which the State, in order to keep the price of milk artificially high within the State, required milk dealers buying out-of-state to pay producers, wherever they were, what the dealers had to pay within the State, and, thus, in-state producers were protected. And in H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, the Court struck down a state refusal to grant an out-of-state milk distributor a license to operate a milk receiving station within the State on the basis that the additional diversion of local milk to the other State would impair the supply for the in-state market. A State may not bar an interstate market to protect local interests.

State Taxation and Regulation: The Modern Law

General Considerations.-Transition from the old law to the modern standard occurred relatively smoothly in the field of regulation, but in the area of taxation the passage was choppy and often witnessed retreats and advances. In any event, both taxation and regulation now are evaluated under a judicial balancing formula comparing the burden on interstate commerce with the importance of the state interest, save for discriminatory state action that cannot be justified at all.

Taxation.-During the 1940s and 1950s, there was engaged within the Court a contest between the view that interstate commerce could not be taxed at all, at least "directly," and the view that the negative commerce clause protected against the risk of double taxation. In Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, the Court reasserted the principle expressed earlier in Western Live Stock, that the Framers did not intend to immunize interstate commerce from its just share of the state tax burden even though it increased the cost of doing business. Northwestern States held that a State could constitutionally impose a nondiscriminatory, fairly apportioned net income tax on an out-of-state corporation engaged exclusively in interstate commerce in the taxing State. "For the first time outside the context of property taxation, the Court explicitly recognized that an exclusively interstate business could be subjected to the states' taxing powers."Thus, in Northwestern States, foreign corporations, which maintained a sales office and employed sales staff in the taxing State for solicitation of orders for their merchandise that, upon acceptance of the orders at their home office in another jurisdiction, were shipped to customers in the taxing State, were held liable to pay the latter's income tax on that portion of the net income of their interstate business as was attributable to such solicitation.

Yet, the following years saw inconsistent rulings that turned almost completely upon the use of or failure to use "magic words" by legislative drafters. That is, it was constitutional for the States to tax a corporation's net income, properly apportioned to the taxing State, as in Northwestern States, but no State could levy a tax on a foreign corporation for the privilege of doing business in the State, both taxes alike in all respects. In Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, the Court overruled the cases embodying the distinction and articulated a standard that has governed the cases since. The tax in Brady was imposed on the privilege of doing business as applied to a corporation engaged in interstate transportation services in the taxing State; it was measured by the corporation's gross receipts from the service. The appropriate concern, the Court wrote, was to pay attention to "economic realities" and to "address the problems with which the commerce clause is concerned." The standard, a set of four factors that was distilled from precedent but newly applied, was firmly set out. A tax on interstate commerce will be sustained "when the tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the State." All subsequent cases have been decided in this framework.

Nexus.-Nexus is a requirement that flows from both the commerce clause and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. What is required is "some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax." In its commerce-clause setting, the nexus requirement serves to effectuate the "structural concerns about the effects of state regulation on the national economy." That is, "the 'substantial-nexus' requirement . . . limit[s] the reach of State taxing authority so as to ensure that State taxation does not unduly burden interstate commerce."

Often surfacing in cases having to do with the imposition of an obligation by a State on an out-of-state vendor to collect use taxes on goods sold to purchasers in the taxing State, the test is a "physical presence" standard. The Court has sustained the imposition on mail order sellers with retail outlets, solicitors, or property within the taxing State, but it has denied the power to a State when the only connection is that the company communicates with customers in the State by mail or common carrier as part of a general interstate business. The validity of general business taxes on interstate enterprises may also be determined by the nexus standard. However, again, only a minimal contact is necessary.Thus, maintenance of one full-time employee within the State (plus occasional visits by non-resident engineers) to make possible the realization and continuance of contractual relations seemed to the Court to make almost frivolous a claim of lack of sufficient nexus. The application of a state business-and-occupation tax on the gross receipts from a large wholesale volume of pipe and drainage products in the State was sustained, even though the company maintained no office, owned no property, and had no employees in the State, its marketing activities being carried out by an in-state independent contractor.

Also, the Court upheld a State's application of a use tax to aviation fuel stored temporarily in the State prior to loading on aircraft for consumption in interstate flights.

Given the complexity of modern corporations and their frequent diversification and control of subsidiaries, state treatment of businesses operating within and without their borders requires an appropriate definition of the scope of business operations. Thus, States may impose a tax in accordance with a "unitary business" apportionment formula on concerns carrying on part of their business within the taxing State based upon the company's entire proceeds. But there must be a nexus, or minimal connection, between the interstate activities and the taxing State and a rational relationship between the income attributed to the State and the intrastate values of the enterprise.

Apportionment.-This requirement is of long standing, but its importance has broadened as the scope of the States' taxing powers has enlarged. It is concerned with what formulas the States must use to claim a share of a multistate business' tax base for the taxing State, when the business carries on a single integrated enterprise both within and without the State. A State may not exact from interstate commerce more than the State's fair share. Avoidance of multiple taxation, or the risk of multiple taxation, is the test of an apportionment formula. Generally speaking, this factor is both a commerce clause and a due process requisite, and it necessitates a rational relationship between the income attributed to the State and the intrastate values of the enterprise. The Court has declined to impose any particular formula on the States, reasoning that to do so would be to require the Court to engage in "extensive judicial lawmaking," for which it was ill-suited and for which Congress had ample power and ability to legislate.

A deference to state taxing authority was evident in a case in which the Court sustained a state sales tax on the price of a bus ticket for travel that originated in the State but terminated in another State. The tax was unapportioned to reflect the intrastate travel and the interstate travel. The tax in this case was different from the tax upheld in Central Greyhound, the Court held. The previous tax constituted a levy on gross receipts, payable by the seller, whereas the present tax was a sales tax, also assessed on gross receipts, but payable by the buyer. The Oklahoma tax, the Court continued, was internally consistent, since if every State imposed a tax on ticket sales within the State for travel originating there, no sale would be subject to more than one tax. The tax was also externally consistent, the Court held, because it was a tax on the sale of a service that took place in the State, not a tax on the travel.

However, the Court found discriminatory and thus invalid a state intangibles tax on a fraction of the value of corporate stock owned by state residents inversely proportional to the State's exposure to the state income tax.

Discrimination.-The "fundamental principle" governing this factor is simple. "'No State may, consistent with the Commerce Clause, impose a tax which discriminates against interstate commerce . . . by providing a direct commercial advantage to local business.'" That is, a tax which by its terms or operation imposes greater burdens on out-of-state goods or activities than on competing in-state goods or activities will be struck down as discriminatory under the commerce clause. In Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, the Court voided as discriminatory the imposition on an out-of-state wholesaler of a state tax that was levied on manufacturing and wholesaling but that relieved manufacturers subject to the manufacturing tax of liability for paying the wholesaling tax. Even though the former tax was higher than the latter, the Court found the imposition discriminated against the interstate wholesaler. A state excise tax on wholesale liquor sales, which exempted sales of specified local products, was held to violate the commerce clause. A state statute that granted a tax credit for ethanol fuel if the ethanol was produced in the State, or if produced in another State that granted a similar credit to the State's ethanol fuel, was found discriminatory in violation of the clause. Expanding, although neither unexpectedly nor exceptionally, its dormant commerce jurisprudence, the Court in Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison applied its non-discrimination element of the doctrine to invalidate the State's charitable property tax exemption statute, which applied to nonprofit firms performing benevolent and charitable functions, but which excluded entities serving primarily non-state residents. The claimant here operated a church camp for children, most of whom resided out-of-state. The discriminatory tax would easily have fallen had it been applied to profit-making firms, and the Court saw no reason to make an exception for nonprofits. The tax scheme was designed to encourage entities to care for local populations and to discourage attention to out-of-state individuals and groups. "For purposes of Commerce Clause analysis, any categorical distinction between the activities of profit-making enterprises and not-for-profit entities is therefore wholly illusory. Entities in both categories are major participants in interstate markets. And, although the summer camp involved in this case may have a relatively insignificant impact on the commerce of the entire Nation, the interstate commercial activities of nonprofit entities as a class are unquestionably significant."

Benefit Relationship.-Although, in all the modern cases, the Court has stated that a necessary factor to sustain state taxes having an interstate impact is that the levy be fairly related to benefits provided by the taxing State, it has declined to be drawn into any consideration of the amount of the tax or the value of the benefits bestowed. The test rather is whether, as a matter of the first factor, the business has the requisite nexus with the State; if it does, the tax meets the fourth factor simply because the business has enjoyed the opportunities and protections which the State has afforded it.

Regulation.-Adoption of the modern standard of commerce-clause review of state regulation of or having an impact on interstate commerce was achieved in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, although it was presaged in a series of opinions, mostly dissents, by Chief Justice Stone. The Southern Pacific case tested the validity of a state train-length law, justified as a safety measure. Revising a hundred years of doctrine, the Chief Justice wrote that whether a state or local regulation was valid depended upon a "reconciliation of the conflicting claims of state and national power [that] is to be attained only by some appraisal and accommodation of the competing demands of the state and national interests involved." Save in those few cases in which Congress has acted, "this Court, and not the state legislature, is under the commerce clause the final arbiter of the competing demands of state and national interests."

That the test to be applied was a balancing one, the Chief Justice made clear at length, stating that in order to determine whether the challenged regulation was permissible, "matters for ultimate determination are the nature and extent of the burden which the state regulation of interstate trains, adopted as a safety measure, imposes on interstate commerce, and whether the relative weights of the state and national interests involved are such as to make inapplicable the rule, generally observed, that the free flow of interstate commerce and its freedom from local restraints in matters requiring uniformity of regulation are interests safeguarded by the commerce clause from state interference."

The test today continues to be the Stone articulation, although the more frequently quoted encapsulation of it is from Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. "Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.... If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities."

Obviously, the test requires "even-handedness." Discrimination in regulation is another matter altogether. When on its face or in its effect a regulation betrays "economic protectionism," an intent to benefit in-state economic interests at the expense of out-of-state interests, no balancing is required. "When a state statute clearly discriminates against interstate commerce, it will be struck down . . . unless the discrimination is demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism, ... Indeed, when the state statute amounts to simple economic protectionism, a 'virtually per se rule of invalidity' has applied." Thus, an Oklahoma law that required coal-fired electric utilities in the State, producing power for sale in the State, to burn a mixture of coal containing at least 10% Oklahoma-mined coal was invalidated at the behest of a State that had previously provided virtually 100% of the coal used by the Oklahoma utilities. Similarly, the Court invalidated a state law that permitted interdiction of export of hydroelectric power from the State to neighboring States, when in the opinion of regulatory authorities the energy was required for use in the State; a State may not prefer its own citizens over out-of-state residents in access to resources within the State.

States may certainly promote local economic interests and favor local consumers, but they may not do so by adversely regulating out-of-state producers or consumers. In Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, the Court confronted a state requirement that closed containers of apples offered for sale or shipped into North Carolina carry no grade other than the applicable U. S. grade. Washington State mandated that all apples produced in and shipped in interstate commerce pass a much more rigorous inspection than that mandated by the United States. The inability to display the recognized state grade in North Carolina impeded marketing of Washington apples. The Court obviously suspected the impact was intended, but, rather than strike the state requirement down as purposeful, it held that the regulation had the practical effect of discriminating, and, inasmuch as no defense based on possible consumer protection could be presented, the state law was invalidated. State actions to promote local products and producers, of everything from milk to alcohol, may not be achieved through protectionism.

Even garbage transportation and disposition is covered by the negative commerce clause. A state law that banned the importation of most solid or liquid wastes that originated outside the State was struck down, because the State could not justify it as a health or safety measure, in the form of a quarantine, inasmuch as it did not limit in-state disposal at its landfills; the State was simply attempting to conserve landfill space and lower costs to its residents by keeping out trash from other States. Further extending the limitation of the clause on waste disposal, the Court invalidated as a discrimination against interstate commerce a local "flow control" law, which required all solid waste within the town to be processed at a designated transfer station before leaving the municipality. The town's reason for the restriction was its decision to have built a solid waste transfer station by a private contractor, rather than with public funds by the town. To make the arrangement appetizing to the contractor, the town guaranteed it a minimum waste flow, for which it could charge a fee significantly higher than market rates. The guarantee was policed by the requirement that all solid waste generated within the town be processed at the contractor's station and that any person disposing of solid waste in any other location would be penalized.

The Court analogized the constraint as a form of economic protectionism, which bars outof-state processors from the business of treating the localities solid waste, by hoarding a local resource for the benefit of local businesses that perform the service. The town's goal of revenue generation was not a local interest that could justify the discrimination. Moreover, the town had other means to accomplish this goal, such as subsidization of the local facility through general taxes or municipal bonds. The Court did not deal with, indeed, did not notice, the fact that the local law conferred a governmentally-granted monopoly, an exclusive franchise, indistinguishable from a host of local monopolies at the state and local level.

States may not interdict the movement of persons into the State, whatever the motive to protect themselves from economic or similar difficulties.

Drawing the line between discriminatory regulations that are almost per se invalid and regulations that necessitate balancing is not an easy task. Not every claim of protectionism is sustained. Thus, in Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., there was attacked a state law banning the retail sale of milk products in plastic, nonreturnable containers but permitting sales in other non-returnable, nonrefillable containers, such as paperboard cartons. The Court found no discrimination against interstate commerce, because both in- state and out-of-state interests could not use plastic containers, and it refused to credit a lower, state-court finding that the measure was intended to benefit the local pulpwood industry. In Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, the Court upheld a statute that prohibited producers or refiners of petroleum products from operating retail service stations in Maryland. No discrimination was found, first, because there were no local producers or refiners within Maryland and therefore since the State's entire gasoline supply flowed in interstate commerce there was no favoritism, and, second, although the bar on operating fell entirely on out-of-state concerns, there were out-of-state concerns that did not produce or refine gasoline and they were able to continue operating in the State, so that there was some distinction between all in-state operators and some out-of-state operators as against some other out-of-state operators.

Still a model example of balancing is Chief Justice Stone's opinion in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona. At issue was the validity of Arizona's law barring the operation within the State of trains of more than 14 passenger cars, no other State had a figure this low, or 70 freight cars, only one other State had a cap this low. First, the Court observed that the law substantially burdened interstate commerce. Enforcement of the law in Arizona, while train lengths went unregulated or were regulated by varying standards in other States, meant that interstate trains of a length lawful in other States had to be broken up before entering the State; inasmuch as it was not practicable to break up trains at the border, that act had to be accomplished at yards quite removed, with the result that the Arizona limitation controlled train lengths as far east as El Paso, Texas, and as far west as Los Angeles. Nearly 95% of the rail traffic in Arizona was interstate. The other alternative was to operate in other States with the lowest cap, Arizona's, with the result that that State's law controlled the railroads' operations over a wide area. If other States began regulating at different lengths, as they would be permitted to do, the burden on the railroads would burgeon. Moreover, the additional number of trains needed to comply with the cap just within Arizona was costly, and delays were occasioned by the need to break up and remake lengthy trains. Conversely, the Court found that as a safety measure the state cap had "at most slight and dubious advantage, if any, over unregulated train lengths." That is, while there were safety problems with longer trains, the shorter trains mandated by state law required increases in the numbers of trains and train operations and a consequent increase in accidents generally more severe than those attributable to longer trains. In short, the evidence did not show that the cap lessened rather than increased the danger of accidents.

Conflicting state regulations appeared in Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines. There, Illinois required the use of contour mud-guards on trucks and trailers operating on the State's highways, while adjacent Arkansas required the use of straight mudguards and banned contoured ones. At least 45 States authorized straight mudguards. The Court sifted the evidence and found it conflicting on the comparative safety advantages of contoured and straight mudguards. But, admitting that if that were all that was involved the Court would have to sustain the costs and burdens of outfitting with the required mudguards, the Court invalidated the Illinois law, because of the massive burden on interstate commerce occasioned by the necessity of truckers to shift cargoes to differently designed vehicles at the State's borders.

Arguably, the Court in more recent years has continued to stiffen the scrutiny with which it reviews state regulation of interstate carriers purportedly for safety reasons. Difficulty attends any evaluation of the possible developing approach, inasmuch as the Court has spoken with several voices. A close reading, however, indicates that while the Court is most reluctant to invalidate regulations that touch upon safety and that if safety justifications are not illusory it will not second-guess legislative judgment, nonetheless, the Court will not accept, without more, state assertions of safety motivations. "Regulations designed for that salutary purpose nevertheless may further the purpose so marginally, and interfere with commerce so substantially, as to be invalid under the Commerce Clause." Rather, the asserted safety purpose must be weighed against the degree of interference with interstate commerce. "This 'weighing' . . . requires . . . a sensitive consideration of the weight and nature of the state regulatory concern in light of the extent of the burden imposed on the course of interstate commerce."

Balancing has been used in other than transportation-industry cases. Indeed, the modern restatement of the standard was in such a case. There, the State required cantaloupes grown in the State to be packed there, rather than in an adjacent State, so that in-state packers' names would be associated with a superior product. Promotion of a local industry was legitimate, the Court, said, but it did not justify the substantial expense the company would have to incur to comply. State efforts to protect local markets, concerns, or consumers against outside companies have largely been unsuccessful. Thus, a state law that prohibited ownership of local investment-advisory businesses by out-of-state banks, bank- holding companies, and trust companies was invalidated. The Court plainly thought the statute was protectionist, but instead of voiding it for that reason it held that the legitimate interests the State might have did not justify the burdens placed on out-of-state companies and that the State could pursue the accomplishment of legitimate ends through some intermediate form of regulation. In Edgar v. Mite Corp., an Illinois regulation of take- over attempts of companies that had specified business contacts with the State, as applied to an attempted take-over of a Delware corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut, was found to constitute an undue burden, with special emphasis upon the extraterritorial effect of the law and the dangers of disuniformity. These problems were found lacking in the next case, in which the state statute regulated the manner in which purchasers of corporations chartered within the State and with a specified percentage of in- state shareholders could proceed with their take-over efforts. The Court emphasized that the State was regulating only its own corporations, which it was empowered to do, and no matter how many other States adopted such laws there would be no conflict. The burdens on interstate commerce, and the Court was not that clear that the effects of the law were burdensome in the appropriate context, were justified by the State's interests in regulating its corporations and resident shareholders.

In other areas, while the Court repeats balancing language, it has not applied it with any appreciable bite, but in most respects the state regulations involved are at most problematic in the context of the concerns of the commerce clause.

Foreign Commerce and State Powers

State taxation and regulation of commerce from abroad are also subject to negative commerce clause constraints. In the seminal case of Brown v. Maryland, in the course of striking down a state statute requiring "all importers of foreign articles or commodities," preparatory to selling the goods, to take out a license, Chief Justice Marshall developed a lengthy exegesis explaining why the law was void under both the import-export clauseand the commerce clause. According to the Chief Justice, an inseparable part of the right to import was the right to sell, and a tax on the sale of an article is a tax on the article itself. Thus, the taxing power of the States did not extend in any form to imports from abroad so long as they remain "the property of the importer, in his warehouse, in the original form or package" in which they were imported, hence, the famous "original package" doctrine. Only when the importer parts with his importations, mixes them into his general property by breaking up the packages, may the State treat them as taxable property.

Obviously, to the extent that the import-export clause was construed to impose a complete ban on taxation of imports so long as they were in their original packages, there was little occasion to develop a commerce-clause analysis that would have reached only discriminatory taxes or taxes upon goods in transit. In other respects, however, the Court has applied the foreign commerce aspect of the clause more stringently against state taxation.

Thus, in Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, the Court held that, in addition to satisfying the four requirements that govern the permissibility of state taxation of interstate commerce, "When a State seeks to tax the instrumentalities of foreign commerce, two additional considerations . . . come into play. The first is the enhanced risk of multiple taxation.... Second, a state tax on the instrumentalities of foreign commerce may impair federal uniformity in an area where federal uniformity is essential." Multiple taxation is to be avoided with respect to interstate commerce by apportionment so that no jurisdiction may tax all the property of a multistate business, and the rule of apportionment is enforced by the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over all the States. However, the Court is unable to enforce such a rule against another country, and the country of the domicile of the business may impose a tax on full value. Uniformity could be frustrated by disputes over multiple taxation, and trade disputes could result.

Applying both these concerns, the Court invalidated a state tax, a nondiscriminatory, ad valorem property tax, on foreign-owned instrumentalities, i.e., cargo containers, of international commerce. The containers were used exclusively in international commerce and were based in Japan, which did in fact tax them on full value. Thus, there was the actuality, not only the risk, of multiple taxation. National uniformity was endangered, because, while California taxed the Japanese containers, Japan did not tax American containers, and disputes resulted.

On the other hand, the Court has upheld a state tax on all aviation fuel sold within the State as applied to a foreign airline operating charters to and from the United States. The Court found the Complete Auto standards met, and it similarly decided that the two standards specifically raised in foreign commerce cases were not violated. First, there was no danger of double taxation because the tax was imposed upon a discrete transaction, the sale of fuel, that occurred within one jurisdiction only. Second, the one-voice standard was satisfied, inasmuch as the United States had never entered into any compact with a foreign nation precluding such state taxation, having only signed agreements with others, having no force of law, aspiring to eliminate taxation that constituted impediments to air travel. Also, a state unitary-tax scheme that used a worldwide-combined reporting formula was upheld as applied to the taxing of the income of a domestic-based corporate group with extensive foreign operations.

Extending Container Corp., the Court in Barclays Bank v. Franchise Tax Bd. of California, upheld the State's worldwide-combined reporting method of determining the corporate franchise tax owed by unitary multinational corporations, as applied to a foreign corporation. The Court determined that the tax easily satisfied three of the four-part Complete Auto test-nexus, apportionment, and relation to State's services-and concluded that the non-discrimination principle-perhaps violated by the letter of the law-could be met by the discretion accorded state officials. As for the two additional factors, as outlined in Japan Lines, the Court pronounced itself satisfied. Multiple taxation was not the inevitable result of the tax, and that risk would not be avoided by the use of any reasonable alternative. The tax, it was found, did not impair federal uniformity or prevent the Federal Government from speaking with one voice in international trade, in view of the fact that Congress had rejected proposals that would have preempted California's practice. The result of the case, perhaps intended, is that foreign corporations have less protection under the negative commerce clause.

The power to regulate foreign commerce was always broader than the States' power to tax it, an exercise of the "police power" recognized by Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. Maryland.

That this power was constrained by notions of the national interest and preemption principles was evidenced in the cases striking down state efforts to curb and regulate the actions of shippers bringing persons into their ports. On the other hand, quarantine legislation to protect the States' residents from disease and other hazards was commonly upheld though it regulated international commerce. A state game-season law applied to criminalize the possession of a dead grouse imported from Russia was upheld because of the practical necessities of enforcement of domestic law.

Nowadays, state regulation of foreign commerce is likely to be judged by the extra factors set out in Japan Line. Thus, the application of a state civil rights law to a corporation transporting passengers outside the State to an island in a foreign province was sustained in an opinion emphasizing that, because of the particularistic geographic situation the foreign commerce involved was more conceptual than actual, there was only a remote hazard of conflict between state law and the law of the other country and little if any prospect of burdening foreign commerce.

Concurrent Federal and State Jurisdiction

The General Issue: Preemption

In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, held that New York legislation that excluded from the navigable waters of that State steam vessels enrolled and licensed under an act of Congress to engage in the coasting trade was in conflict with the federal law and hence void. The result, said the Chief Justice, was required by the supremacy clause, which proclaimed not only that the Constitution itself but statutes enacted pursuant to it and treaties superseded state laws that "interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress ... In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."

Since the turn of the century, federal legislation, primarily but not exclusively under the commerce clause, has penetrated deeper and deeper into areas once occupied by the regulatory power of the States. One result is that state laws on subjects about which Congress has legislated have been more and more frequently attacked as being incompatible with the acts of Congress and hence invalid under the supremacy clause.

"The constitutional principles of preemption, in whatever particular field of law they operate, are designed with a common end in view: to avoid conflicting regulation of conduct by various official bodies which might have some authority over the subject matter." As Justice Black once explained in a much quoted exposition of the matter: "There is not-and from the very nature of the problem there cannot be-any rigid formula or rule which can be used as a universal pattern to determine the meaning and purpose of every act of Congress. This Court, in considering the validity of state laws in the light of treaties or federal laws touching the same subject, has made use of the following expressions: conflicting; contrary to; occupying the field; repugnance; difference; irreconcilability; inconsistency; violation; curtailment; and interference. But none of these expressions provides an infallible constitutional test or an exclusive constitutional yardstick. In the final analysis, there can be no one crystal clear distinctly marked formula. Our primary function is to determine whether, under the circumstances of this particular case, Pennsylvania's law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."

Before setting out in their various forms the standards and canons to which the Court formally adheres, one must still recognize the highly subjective nature of their application. As an astute observer long ago observed, "the use or non-use of particular tests, as well as their content, is influenced more by judicial reaction to the desirability of the state legislation brought into question than by metaphorical sign-language of 'occupation of the field.' And it would seem that this is largely unavoidable. The Court, in order to determine an unexpressed congressional intent, has undertaken the task of making the independent judgment of social values that Congress has failed to make. In making this determination, the Court's evaluation of the desirability of overlapping regulatory schemes or overlapping criminal sanctions cannot but be a substantial factor."

Preemption Standards.-Until roughly the New Deal, as recited above, the Supreme Court applied a doctrine of "dual federalism," under which the Federal Government and the States were separate sovereigns, each preeminent in its own fields but lacking authority in the other's. This conception affected preemption cases, with the Court taking the view, largely, that any congressional regulation of a subject effectively preempted the field and ousted the States. Thus, when Congress entered the field of railroad regulation, the result was invalidation of many previously enacted state measures. Even here, however, safety measures tended to survive, and health and safety legislation in other areas was protected from the effects of federal regulatory actions.

In the 1940s, the Court began to develop modern standards for determining when preemption occurred, which are still recited and relied on. All modern cases recite some variation of the basic standards. "[T]he question whether a certain state action is preempted by federal law is one of congressional intent. The purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone. To discern Congress' intent we examine the explicit statutory language and the structure and purpose of the statute." Congress' intent to supplant state authority in a particular field may be express in the terms of the statute. Since preemption cases, when the statute contains no express provision, theoretically turn on statutory construction, generalizations about them can carry one only so far. Each case must construe a different federal statute with a distinct legislative history. If the statute and the legislative history are silent or unclear, the Supreme Court has developed over time general criteria which it purports to utilize in determining the preemptive effect of federal legislation.

In the final conclusion, "the generalities" that may be drawn from the cases do not decide them. Rather, "the fate of state legislation in these cases has not been determined by these generalities but by the weight of the circumstances and the practical and experienced judgment in applying these generalities to the particular instances."

The Standards Applied.-As might be expected from the caveat just quoted, any overview of the Court's preemption decisions can only make the field seem muddled, and to some extent it is. But some guidelines may be extracted.

Express Preemption. Of course, it is possible for Congress to write preemptive language that clearly and cleanly prescribes or does not prescribe displacement of state laws in an area. Provisions governing preemption can be relatively interpretation free. For example, a prohibition of state taxes on carriage of air passengers "or on the gross receipts derived therefrom" was held to preempt a state tax on airlines, described by the State as a personal property tax, but based on a percentage of the airline's gross income; "the manner in which the state legislature has described and categorized [the tax] cannot mask the fact that the purpose and effect of the provision are to impose a levy upon the gross receipts of airlines." But, more often than not, express preemptive language may be ambiguous or at least not free from conflicting interpretation. Thus, the Court was divided with respect to whether a provision of the Airline Deregulation Act proscribing the States from having and enforcing laws "relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier" applied to displace state consumer-protection laws regulating airline fare advertising. A basic issue is whether preemption or saving language applicable to a "state" applies as well to local governments. In a case involving statutory language preserving "state" authority, the Court created a presumption favoring applicability to local governments: "[a]bsent a clear statement to the contrary, Congress' reference to the 'regulatory authority of a State' should be read to preserve, not preempt, the traditional prerogative of the States to delegate their authority to their constituent parts."

Perhaps the broadest preemption section ever enacted, § 514 of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), is so constructed that the Court has been moved to comment that the provisions "are not a model of legislative drafting." The section declares that the statute shall "supersede any and all State laws insofar as they now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan," but saves to the States the power to enforce "law[s] . . . which regulates insurance, banking, or securities," except that an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA shall not be "deemed" an insurance company, an insurer, or engaged in the business of insurance for purposes of state laws "purporting to regulate" insurance companies or insurance contracts. Interpretation of the provisions has resulted in contentious and divided Court opinions.

Illustrative of the judicial difficulty with ambiguous preemption language are the fractured opinions in the Cipollone case, in which the Court had to decide whether sections of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, enacted in 1965 and 1969, preempted state common-law actions against a cigarette company for the alleged harm visited on a smoker. The 1965 provision barred the requirement of any "statement" relating to smoking health, other than what the federal law imposed, and the 1969 provision barred the imposition of any "requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health" by any "State law." It was, thus, a fair question whether common-law claims, based on design defect, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to defraud, were preempted or whether only positive state enactments came within the scope of the clauses. Two groups of Justices concluded that the 1965 section reached only positive state law and did not preempt common-law actions; different alignments of Justices concluded that the 1969 provisions did reach common-law claims, as well as positive enactments, and did preempt some of the claims insofar as they in fact constituted a requirement or prohibition based on smoking health.

Little clarification of the confusing Cipollone decision and opinions resulted in the cases following, although it does seem evident that the attempted distinction limiting courts to the particular language of preemption when Congress has spoken has not prevailed. At issue in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, was the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) of 1976, which prohibited States from adopting or continuing in effect "with respect to a [medical] device" any "requirement" that is "different from, or in addition to" the applicable federal requirement and that relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device. The issue, then, was whether a common-law tort obligation imposed a "requirement" that was different from or in addition to any federal requirement. The device, a pacemaker lead, had come on the market not pursuant to the rigorous FDA test but rather as determined by the FDA to be "substantially equivalent" to a device previously on the market, a situation of some import to at least some of the Justices.

Unanimously, the Court determined that a defective design claim was not preempted and that the MDA did not prevent States from providing a damages remedy for violation of common-law duties that paralleled federal requirements. But the Justices split 4- 1-4 with respect to preemption of various claims relating to manufacturing and labeling. FDA regulations, which a majority deferred to, limited preemption to situations in which a particular state requirement threatens to interfere with a specific federal interest. Moreover, the common-law standards were not specifically developed to govern medical devices and their generality removed them from the category of requirements "with respect to" specific devices. However, five Justices did agree that common-law requirements could be, just as statutory provisions, "requirements" that were preempted, though they did not agree on the application of that view.

Following Cipollone, the Court observed that while it "need not go beyond" the statutory preemption language, it did need to "identify the domain expressly pre-empted" by the language, so that "our interpretation of that language does not occur in a contextual vacuum." That is, it must be informed by two presumptions about the nature of preemption: the presumption that Congress does not cavalierly preempt common-law causes of action and the principle that it is Congress' purpose that is the ultimate touchstone.

The Court continued to struggle with application of express preemption language to state common-law tort actions in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contained both a preemption clause, prohibiting states from applying "any safety standard" different from an applicable federal standard, and a "saving clause," providing that "compliance with" a federal safety standard "does not exempt any person from any liability under common law." The Court determined that the express preemption clause was inapplicable. However, despite the saving clause, the Court ruled that a common law tort action seeking damages for failure to equip a car with an airbag was preempted because its application would frustrate the purpose of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that had allowed manufacturers to choose from among a variety of "passive restraint" systems for the applicable model year. The Court's holding makes clear, contrary to the suggestion in Cipollone, that existence of express preemption language does not foreclose operation of conflict (in this case "frustration of purpose") preemption.

Field Preemption. Where the scheme of federal regulation is "so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it,"States are ousted from the field. Still a paradigmatic example of field preemption is Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Court held that a new federal law requiring the registration of all aliens in the country precluded enforcement of a pre-existing state law mandating registration of aliens within the State. Adverting to the supremacy of national power in foreign relations and the sensitivity of the relationship between the regulation of aliens and the conduct of foreign affairs, the Court had little difficulty declaring the entire field to have been occupied by federal law. Similarly, in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, the Court invalidated as preempted a state law punishing sedition against the National Government. The Court enunciated a three-part test: 1) the pervasiveness of federal regulation; 2) federal occupation of the field as necessitated by the need for national uniformity; and 3) the danger of conflict between state and federal administration.

The Rice case itself held that a federal system of regulating the operations of warehouses and the rates they charged completely occupied the field and ousted state regulation.However, it is often a close decision whether a federal law has regulated part of a field, however defined, or the whole area, so that state law cannot even supplement the federal. Illustrative of this point is the Court's holding that the Atomic Energy Act's preemption of the safety aspects of nuclear power did not invalidate a state law conditioning construction of nuclear power plants on a finding by a state agency that adequate storage and disposal facilities were available to treat nuclear wastes, since "economic" regulation of power generation has traditionally been left to the States - an arrangement maintained by the Act - and since the state law could be justified as an economic rather than a safety regulation.

A city's effort to enforce stiff penalties for ship pollution that resulted from boilers approved by the Federal Government was held not preempted, the field of boiler safety, but not boiler pollution, having been occupied by federal regulation. A state liability scheme imposing cleanup costs and strict, no-fault liability on shore facilities and ships for any oil-spill damage was held to complement a federal law concerned solely with recovery of actual cleanup costs incurred by the Federal Government and which textually presupposed federal-state cooperation. On the other hand, a comprehensive regulation of the design, size, and movement of oil tankers in Puget Sound was found, save in one respect, to be either expressly or implicitly preempted by federal law and regulations. Critical to the determination was the Court's conclusion that Congress, without actually saying so, had intended to mandate exclusive standards and a single federal decisionmaker for safety purposes in vessel regulation. Also, a closely divided Court voided a city ordinance placing an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on jet flights from the city airport where, despite the absence of preemptive language in federal law, federal regulation of aircraft noise was of such a pervasive nature as to leave no room for state or local regulation.

Congress may preempt state regulation without itself prescribing a federal standard; it may deregulate a field and thus occupy it by opting for market regulation and precluding state or local regulation.

Conflict Preemption. Several possible situations will lead to a holding that a state law is preempted as in conflict with federal law. First, it may be that the two laws, federal and state, will actually conflict. Thus, in Rose v. Arkansas State Police, federal law provided for death benefits for state law enforcement officers "in addition to" any other compensation, while the state law required a reduction in state benefits by the amount received from other sources. The Court, in a brief, per curiam opinion, had no difficulty finding the state provision preempted.

Second, conflict preemption may occur when it is practically impossible to comply with the terms of both laws. Thus, where a federal agency had authorized federal savings and loan associations to include "due-on-sale" clauses in their loan instruments and where the State had largely prevented inclusion of such clauses, while it was literally possible for lenders to comply with both rules, the federal rule being permissive, the state regulation prevented the exercise of the flexibility the federal agency had conferred and was preempted. On the other hand, it was possible for an employer to comply both with a state law mandating leave and reinstatement to pregnant employees and with a federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Similarly, when faced with both federal and state standards on the ripeness of avocados, the Court discerned that the federal standard was a "minimum" one rather than a "uniform" one and decided that growers could comply with both.

Third, a fruitful source of preemption is found when it is determined that the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Thus, the Court voided a state requirement that the average net weight of a package of flour in a lot could not be less than the net weight stated on the package. While applicable federal law permitted variations from stated weight caused by distribution losses, such as through partial dehydration, the State allowed no such deviation. Although it was possible for a producer to satisfy the federal standard while satisfying the tougher state standard, the Court discerned that to do so defeated one purpose of the federal require-ment -the facilitating of value comparisons by shoppers. Because different producers in different situations in order to comply with the state standard may have to overpack flour to make up for dehydration loss, consumers would not be comparing packages containing identical amounts of flour solids. In Felder v. Casey, a state notice-of-claim statute was found to frustrate the remedial objectives of civil rights laws as applied to actions brought in state court under 42 U. S. C. §1983. A state law recognizing the validity of an unrecorded oral sale of an aircraft was held preempted by the Federal Aviation Act's provision that unrecorded "instruments" of transfer are invalid, since the congressional purpose evidenced in the legislative history was to make information about an aircraft's title readily available by requiring that all transfers be documented and recorded.

In Boggs v. Boggs, the Court, 5-to-4, applied the "stands as an obstacle" test for conflict even though the statute (ERISA) contains an express preemption section. The dispute arose in a community-property State, in which heirs of a deceased wife claimed property that involved pension-benefit assets that was left to them by testamentary disposition, as against a surviving second wife. Two ERISA provisions operated to prevent the descent of the property to the heirs, but under community-property rules the property could have been left to the heirs by their deceased mother. The Court did not pause to analyze whether the ERISA preemption provision operated to preclude the descent of the property, either because state law "relate[d] to" a covered pension plan or because state law had an impermissible "connection with" a plan, but it instead decided that the operation of the state law insofar as it conflicted with the purposes Congress had intended to achieve by ERISA and insofar as it ran into the two noted provisions of ERISA stood as an obstacle to the effectuation of the ERISA law. "We can begin, and in this case end, the analysis by simply asking if state law conflicts with the provisions of ERISA or operates to frustrate its objects. We hold that there is a conflict, which suffices to resolve the case. We need not inquire whether the statutory phrase 'relate to' provides further and additional support for the pre-emption claim. Nor need we consider the applicability of field preemption."

Similarly, the Court found it unnecessary to consider field preemption due to its holding that a Massachusetts law barring state agencies from purchasing goods or services from companies doing business with Burma imposed obstacles to the accomplishment of Congress's full objectives under the federal Burma sanctions law. The state law was said to undermine the federal law in several respects that could have implicated field preemption - by limiting the President's effective discretion to control sanctions, and by frustrating the President's ability to engage in effective diplomacy in developing a comprehensive multilateral strategy - but the Court "decline[d] to speak to field preemption as a separate issue."

Also, a state law making agricultural producers' associations the exclusive bargaining agents and requiring payment of service fees by nonmember producers was held to counter a strong federal policy protecting the right of farmers to join or not join such associations. And a state assertion of the right to set minimum stream-flow requirements different from those established by FERC in its licensing capacity was denied as being preempted under the Federal Power Act, despite language requiring deference to state laws "relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water."

Contrarily, a comprehensive federal regulation of insecticides and other such chemicals was held not to preempt a town ordinance that required a permit for the spraying of pesticides, there being no conflict between requirements. The application of state antitrust laws to authorize indirect purchasers to recover for all overcharges passed on to them by direct purchasers was held to implicate no preemption concerns, inasmuch as the federal antitrust laws had been interpreted as not permitting indirect purchasers to recover under federal law; state law may be inconsistent with federal law but in no way did it frustrate federal objectives and policies. The effect of federal policy was not strong enough to warrant a holding of preemption when a State authorized condemnation of abandoned railroad property after conclusion of an ICC proceeding permitting abandonment, although the railroad's opportunity costs in the property had been considered in the decision on abandonment.

Federal Versus State Labor Laws.-One group of cases, which has caused the Court much difficulty over the years, concerns the effect of federal labor laws on state power to govern labor-management relations. Although the Court some time ago reached a settled rule, changes in membership on the Court reopened the issue and modified the rules.

With the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act and subsequent amendments, Congress declared a national policy in labor-management relations and established the NLRB to carry out that policy. It became the Supreme Court's responsibility to determine what role state law on labor-management relations was to play. At first, the Court applied a test of determination whether the state regulation was in direct conflict with the national regulatory scheme. Thus, in one early case, the Court held that an order by a state board which commanded a union to desist from mass picketing of a factory and from assorted personal threats was not in conflict with the national law that had not been invoked and that did not touch on some of the union conduct in question. A "cease and desist" order of a state board implementing a state provision making it an unfair labor practice for employees to conduct a slowdown or to otherwise interfere with production while on the job was found not to conflict with federal law, while another order of the board was also sustained in its prohibition of the discharge of an employee under a maintenance-of- membership clause inserted in a contract under pressure from the War Labor Board and which violated state law.

On the other hand, a state statute requiring business agents of unions operating in the State to file annual reports and to pay an annual fee of one dollar was voided as in conflict with federal law. And state statutes providing for mediation and outlawing public utility strikes were similarly voided as being in specific conflict with federal law. A somewhat different approach was noted in several cases in which the Court held that the federal act had so occupied the field in certain areas as to preclude state regulation. The latter approach was predominant through the 1950s as the Court voided state court action in enjoining or awarding damages for peaceful picketing, in awarding of relief by damages or otherwise for conduct which constituted an unfair labor practice under federal law, or in enforcing state antitrust laws so as to affect collective bargaining agreements or to bar a strike as a restraint of trade, even with regard to disputes over which the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction because of the degree of effect on interstate commerce.

In San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, the Court enunciated the rule, based on its previous decade of adjudication. "When an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the Act, the States . . . must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted."

For much of the period since Garmon, the dispute in the Court concerned the scope of the few exceptions permitted in the Garmon principle. First, when picketing is not wholly peaceful but is attended by intimidation, violence, and obstruction of the roads affording access to the struck establishment, state police powers have been held not disabled to deal with the conduct and narrowly-drawn injunctions directed against violence and mass picketing have been permitted as well as damages to compensate for harm growing out of such activities.

A 1958 case permitted a successful state court suit for reinstatement and damages for lost pay because of a wrongful expulsion, leading to discharge from employment, based on a theory that the union constitution and by-laws constitute a contract between the union and the members the terms of which can be enforced by state courts without the danger of a conflict between state and federal law. The Court subsequently narrowed the interpretation of this ruling by holding in two cases that members who alleged union interference with their existing or prospective employment relations could not sue for damages but must file unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. Gonzales was said to be limited to "purely internal union matters." Finally, Gonzales, was abandoned in a five-to-four decision in which the Court held that a person who alleged that his union had misinterpreted its constitution and its collective bargaining agreement with the individual's employer in expelling him from the union and causing him to be discharged from his employment because he was late paying his dues had to pursue his federal remedies.While it was not likely that in Gonzales, a state court resolution of the scope of duty owed the member by the union would implicate principles of federal law, Justice Harlan wrote for the Court, state court resolution in this case involved an interpretation of the contract's union security clause, a matter on which federal regulation is extensive.

One other exception has been based, like the violence cases, on the assumption that it concerns areas traditionally left to local law into which Congress would not want to intrude. In Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, the Court permitted a state court adjudication of a defamation action arising out of a labor dispute. And in Letter Carriers v. Austin, the Court held that federal law preempts state defamation laws in the context of labor disputes to the extent that the State seeks to make actionable defamatory statements in labor disputes published without knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of truth or falsity.

However, a state tort action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress occasioned through an alleged campaign of personal abuse and harassment of a member of the union by the union and its officials was held not preempted by federal labor law. Federal law was not directed to the "outrageous conduct" alleged, and NLRB resolution of the dispute would neither touch upon the claim of emotional distress and physical injury nor award the plaintiff any compensation. But state court jurisdiction, in order that there not be interference with the federal scheme, must be premised on tortious conduct either unrelated to employment discrimination or a function of the particularly abusive manner in which the discrimination is accomplished or threatened rather than a function of the actual or threatened discrimination itself.

A significant retrenchment of Garmon occurred in Sears, Roe-buck & Co. v. Carpenters, in the context of state court assertion of jurisdiction over trespassory picketing. Objecting to the company's use of nonunion work in one of its departments, the union picketed the store, using the company's property, the lot area surrounding the store, instead of the public sidewalks, to walk on. After the union refused to move its pickets to the sidewalk, the company sought and obtained a state court order enjoining the picketing on company property. Depending upon the union motivation for the picketing, it was either arguably prohibited or arguably protected by federal law, the trespassory nature of the picketing being one factor the NLRB would have looked to in determining at least the protected nature of the conduct. The Court held, however, that under the circumstances, neither the arguably prohibited nor the arguably protected rationale of Garmon was sufficient to deprive the state court of jurisdiction.

First, as to conduct arguably prohibited by NLRA, the Court seemingly expanded the Garmon exception recognizing state court jurisdiction for conduct that touches interests "deeply rooted in local feeling" in holding that where there exists "a significant state interest in protecting the citizens from the challenged conduct" and there exists "little risk of interference with the regulatory jurisdiction" of the NLRB, state law is not preempted. Here, there was obviously a significant state interest in protecting the company from trespass; the second, "critical inquiry" was whether the controversy presented to the state court was identical to or different from that which could have been presented to the Board. The Court concluded that the controversy was different. The Board would have been presented with determining the motivation of the picketing and the location of the picketing would have been irrelevant; the motivation was irrelevant to the state court and the situs of the picketing was the sole inquiry. Thus, there was deemed to be no realistic risk of state interference with Board jurisdiction.

Second, in determining whether the picketing was protected, the Board would have been concerned with the situs of the picketing, since under federal labor laws the employer has no absolute right to prohibit union activity on his property. Preemption of state court jurisdiction was denied, nonetheless, in this case on two joined bases. One, preemption is not required in those cases in which the party who could have presented the protection issue to the Board has not done so and the other party to the dispute has no acceptable means of doing so. In this case, the union could have filed with the Board when the company demanded removal of the pickets, but did not, and the company could not file with the Board at all. Two, even if the matter is not presented to the Board, preemption is called for if there is a risk of erroneous state court adjudication of the protection issue that is unacceptable, so that one must look to the strength of the argument that the activity is protected. While the state court had to make an initial determination that the trespass was not protected under federal law, the same determination the Board would have made, in the instance of trespassory conduct, the risk of erroneous determination is small, because experience shows that a trespass is far more likely to be unprotected than protected.

Introduction of these two balancing tests into the Garmon rationale substantially complicates determining when state courts do not have jurisdiction, and will no doubt occasion much more litigation in state courts than has previously existed.

Another series of cases involves not a Court-created exception to the Garmon rule but the applicability and interpretation of § 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, which authorizes suits in federal, and state, courts to enforce collective bargaining agreements. The Court has held that in enacting § 301, Congress authorized actions based on conduct arguably subject to the NLRA, so that the Garmon preemption doctrine does not preclude judicial enforcement of duties and obligations which would otherwise be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB so long as those duties and obligations are embodied in a collective-bargaining agreement, perhaps as interpreted in an arbitration proceeding.

Here, too, the permissible role of state tort actions has been in great dispute. Generally, a state tort action as an alternative to a § 301 arbitration or enforcement action is preempted if it is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement. Thus, a state damage action for the bad-faith handling of an insurance claim under a disability plan that was part of a collective-bargaining agreement was preempted because it involved interpretation of that agreement and because state enforcement would frustrate the policies of § 301 favoring uniform federal-law interpretation of collective- bargaining agreements and favoring arbitration as a predicate to adjudication.

Finally, the Court has indicated that with regard to some situations, Congress has intended to leave the parties to a labor dispute free to engage in "self-help," so that conduct not subject to federal law is nonetheless withdrawn from state control. However, the NLRA is concerned primarily "with establishing an equitable process for determining terms and conditions of employment, and not with particular substantive terms of the bargain that is struck when the parties are negotiating from relatively equal positions," so States are free to impose minimum labor standards.

Commerce with Indian Tribes

Congress' power to regulate commerce "with the Indian tribes," once almost rendered superfluous by Court decision, has now been resurrected and made largely the basis for informing judicial judgment with respect to controversies concerning the rights and obligations of Native Americans. Although Congress in 1871 forbade the further making of treaties with Indian tribes, cases disputing the application of the old treaties and especially their effects upon attempted state taxation and regulation of on-reservation activities continue to be a staple of the Court's docket. But this clause is one of the two bases now found sufficient to empower Federal Government authority over Native Americans. "The source of federal authority over Indian matters has been the subject of some confusion, but it is now generally recognized that the power derives from federal responsibility for regulating commerce with Indian tribes and for treaty making."Forsaking reliance upon other theories and rationales, the Court has established the preemption doctrine as the analytical framework within which to judge the permissibility of assertions of state jurisdiction over the Indians. However, the "semi-autonomous status" of Indian tribes erects an "independent but related" barrier to the exercise of state authority over commercial activity on an Indian reservation. Thus, the question of preemption is not governed by the standards of preemption developed in other areas. "Instead, the traditional notions of tribal sovereignty, and the recognition and encouragement of this sovereignty in congressional Acts, inform the preemption analysis that governs this inquiry.... As a result, ambiguities in federal law should be construed generously, and federal pre-emption is not limited to those situations where Congress has explicitly announced an intention to pre-empt state activity." A corollary is that the preemption doctrine will not be applied strictly to prevent States from aiding Native Americans.However, the protective rule is inapplicable to state regulation of liquor transactions, since there has been no tradition of tribal sovereignty with respect to that subject.

The scope of state taxing powers-the conflict of "the plenary power of the States over residents within their borders with the semi-autonomous status of Indians living on tribal reservations" -has been often litigated. Absent cession of jurisdiction or other congressional consent, States possess no power to tax Indian reservation lands or Indian income from activities carried on within the boundaries of the reservation. Off- reservation Indian activities require an express federal exemption to deny state taxing power. Subjection to taxation of non-Indians doing business with Indians on the reservation involves a close analysis of the federal statutory framework, although the operating premise was for many years to deny state power because of its burdens upon the development of tribal self-sufficiency as promoted through federal law and its interference with the tribes' ability to exercise their sovereign functions.

That operating premise, however, seems to have been eroded. For example, in Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, the Court held that, in spite of the existence of multiple taxation occasioned by a state oil and gas severance tax applied to on-reservation operations by non-Indians, which was already taxed by the tribe, the impairment of tribal sovereignty was "too indirect and too insubstantial" to warrant a finding of preemption. The fact that the State provided significant services to the oil and gas les-sees justified state taxation and also distinguished earlier cases in which the State had "asserted no legitimate regulatory interest that might justify the tax." Still further erosion, or relaxation, of the principle of construction may be found in a later case, in which the Court, confronted with arguments that the imposition of particular state taxes on Indian property on the reservation was inconsistent with self-determination and self-governance, denominated these as "policy" arguments properly presented to Congress rather than the Court.

The impact on tribal sovereignty is also a prime determinant of relative state and tribal regulatory authority.

Since Worcester v. Georgia, it has been recognized that Indian tribes are unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory. They are, of course, no longer possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty, having relinquished some part of it by their incorporation within the territory of the United States and their acceptance of its protection. By specific treaty provision, they yielded up other sovereign powers, and Congress has removed still others. "The sovereignty that the Indian tribes retain is of a unique and limited character. It exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance."

In a case of major import for the settlement of Indian land claims, the Court ruled in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, that an Indian tribe may obtain damages for wrongful possession of land conveyed in 1795 without the federal approval required by the Nonintercourse Act. The Act reflected the accepted principle that extinguishment of the title to land by Native Americans required the consent of the United States and left intact a tribe's common-law remedies to protect possessory rights. The Court reiterated the accepted rule that enactments are construed liberally in favor of Native Americans and that Congress may abrogate Indian treaty rights or extinguish aboriginal land title only if it does so clearly and unambiguously. Consequently, federal approval of land-conveyance treaties containing references to earlier conveyances that had violated the Nonintercourse Act did not constitute ratification of the invalid conveyances. Similarly, the Court refused to apply the general rule for borrowing a state statute of limitations for the federal common- law action, and it rejected the dissent's view that, given "the extraordinary passage of time," the doctrine of laches should have been applied to bar the claim.

While the power of Congress over Indian affairs is broad, it is not limitless. The Court has promulgated a standard of review that defers to the legislative judgment "[a]s long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation toward the Indians . . ." A more searching review is warranted when it is alleged that the Federal Government's behavior toward the Indians has been in contravention of its obligation and that it has in fact taken property from a tribe which it had heretofore guaranteed to the tribe, without either compensating the tribe or otherwise giving the Indians the full value of the land.

Clause 4. Naturalization and Bankruptcies

Clause 4. The Congress shall have Power *** To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.

Naturalization and Citizenship

Nature and Scope of Congress' Power

Naturalization has been defined by the Supreme Court as "the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen." In the Dred Scott case, the Court asserted that the power of Congress under this clause applies only to "persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign government." These dicta are much too narrow to describe the power that Congress has actually exercised on the subject. The competence of Congress in this field merges, in fact, with its indefinite, inherent powers in the field of foreign relations. "As a government, the United States is invested with all the attributes of sovereignty. As it has the character of nationality it has the powers of nationality, especially those which concern its relations and intercourse with other countries."

Congress' power over naturalization is an exclusive power; no State has the power to constitute a foreign subject a citizen of the United States. But power to naturalize aliens may be, and was early, devolved by Congress upon state courts of record. And States may confer the right of suffrage upon resident aliens who have declared their intention to become citizens and many did so until recently.

Citizenship by naturalization is a privilege to be given, qualified, or withheld as Congress may determine; an individual may claim it as a right only upon compliance with the terms Congress imposes. This interpretation makes of the naturalization power the only power granted in § 8 of Article I that is unrestrained by constitutional limitations on its exercise. Thus, the first naturalization act enacted by the first Congress restricted naturalization to "free white persons[s]," which was expanded in 1870 so that persons of "African nativity and . . . descent" were entitled to be naturalized. Orientals were specifically excluded from eligibility in 1882, and the courts enforced these provisions without any indication that constitutional issues were thereby raised. These exclusions are no longer law. Present naturalization statutes continue and expand on provisions designed to bar subversives, dissidents, and radicals generally from citizenship.

Although the usual form of naturalization is through individual application and official response on the basis of general congressional rules, naturalization is not so limited. Citizenship can be conferred by special act of Congress, it can be conferred collectively either through congressional action, such as the naturalization of all residents of an annexed territory or of a territory made a State, or through treaty provision.

Categories of Citizens: Birth and Naturalization

The first sentence of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization. This contemplation is given statutory expression in § 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which itemizes those categories of persons who are citizens of the United States at birth; all other persons in order to become citizens must pass through the naturalization process. The first category merely tracks the language of the first sentence of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in declaring that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens by birth. But there are six other categories of citizens by birth. They are: (2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe, (3) a person born outside the United States of citizen parents one of whom has been resident in the United States, (4) a person born outside the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States for one year prior to the birth and of a parent who is a national but not a citizen, (5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States or an outlying possession for one year prior to the birth, (6) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five unless prior to his twenty-first birthday he is shown not to have been born in the United States, and (7) a person born outside the United States of an alien parent and a citizen parent who has been resident in the United States for a period of ten years, provided the person is to lose his citizenship unless he resides continuously in the United States for a period of five years between his fourteenth and twenty-eighth birthdays.

Subsection (7) citizens must satisfy the condition subsequent of five years continuous residence within the United States between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight, a requirement held to be constitutional, which means in effect that for constitutional purposes, according to the prevailing interpretation, there is a difference between persons born or naturalized in, that is, within, the United States and persons born outside the confines of the United States who are statutorily made citizens. The principal difference is that the former persons may not be involuntarily expatriated whereas the latter may be, subject only to due process protections.

The Naturalization of Aliens

Although, as has been noted, throughout most of our history there were significant racial and ethnic limitations upon eligibility for naturalization, the present law prohibits any such discrimination.

"The right of a person to become a naturalized citizen of the United States shall not be denied or abridged because of race or sex or because such person is married." However, any person "who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches . . . opposition to all organized government," or "who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States" or who is a member of or affiliated with the Communist Party, or other communist organizations, or other totalitarian organizations is ineligible. These provisions moreover are "applicable to any applicant for naturalization who at any time within a period of ten years immediately preceding the filing of the petition for naturalization or after such filing and before taking the final oath of citizenship is, or has been found to be, within any of the classes enumerated within this section, notwithstanding that at the time the petition is filed he may not be included within such classes."

Other limitations on eligibility are also imposed. Eligibility may turn upon the decision of the responsible officials whether the petitioner is of "good moral character." The immigration and nationality laws themselves include a number of specific congressional determinations that certain persons do not possess "good moral character," including persons who are "habitual drunkards," adulterers, polygamists or advocates of polygamy, gamblers, convicted felons, and homosexuals. In order to petition for naturalization, an alien must have been resident for at least five years and to have possessed "good moral character" for all of that period.

The process of naturalization culminates in the taking in open court of an oath "(1) to support the Constitution of the United States; (2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the petitioner was before a subject or citizen; (3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and (5) (A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or (B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or (C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by law."

Any naturalized person who takes this oath with mental reservations or conceals or misrepresents beliefs, affiliations, and conduct, which under the law disqualify one for naturalization, is subject, upon these facts being shown in a proceeding brought for the purpose, to have his certificate of naturalization cancelled. Moreover, if within a year of his naturalization a person joins an organization or becomes in any way affiliated with one which was a disqualification for naturalization if he had been a member at the time, the fact is made prima facie evidence of his bad faith in taking the oath and grounds for instituting proceedings to revoke his admission to citizenship.

Rights of Naturalized Persons

Chief Justice Marshall early stated in dictum that "[a] naturalized citizen . . . becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is, to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." A similar idea was expressed in Knauer v. United States. "Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship....

[It] carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society, including the right to speak freely, to criticize officials and administrators, and to promote changes in our laws including the very Charter of our Government."

Despite these dicta, it is clear that particularly in the past but currently as well a naturalized citizen has been and is subject to requirements not imposed on native-born citizens. Thus, as we have noted above, a naturalized citizen is subject at any time to have his good faith in taking the oath of allegiance to the United States inquired into and to lose his citizenship if lack of such faith is shown in proper proceedings. And the naturalized citizen within a year of his naturalization will join a questionable organization at his peril. In Luria v. United States, the Court sustained a statute making prima facie evidence of bad faith a naturalized citizen's assumption of residence in a foreign country within five years after the issuance of a certificate of naturalization. But in Schneider v. Rusk, the Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if following naturalization he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. "We start," Justice Douglas wrote for the Court, "from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President." The failure of the statute, the Court held, was that it impermissibly distinguished between native-born and naturalized citizens, denying the latter the equal protection of the laws. "This statute proceeds on the impermissible assumption that naturalized citizens as a class are less reliable and bear less allegiance to this country than do the native-born. This is an assumption that is impossible for us to make.... A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or native-born, is no badge of lack of allegiance and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance."

The Schneider equal protection rationale was abandoned in the next case in which the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbade involuntary expatriation of naturalized persons. But in Rogers v. Bellei, the Court refused to extend this holding to persons statutorily naturalized at birth abroad because one of their parents was a citizen and similarly refused to apply Schneider. Thus, one who failed to honor a condition subsequent had his citizenship revoked. "Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with 'second-class citizenship.' That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not 'second-class.'"

It is not clear where the progression of cases has left us in this area. Clearly, naturalized citizens are fully entitled to all the rights and privileges of those who are citizens because of their birth here. But it seems equally clear that with regard to retention of citizenship, naturalized citizens are not in the secure position of citizens born here.

On another point, the Court has held that, absent a treaty or statute to the contrary, a child born in the United States who is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, does not thereby lose his American citizenship and that it is not necessary for him to make an election and return to the United States. On still another point, it has been held that naturalization is so far retroactive as to validate an acquisition of land prior to naturalization as to which the alien was under a disability.

Expatriation: Loss of Citizenship

The history of the right of expatriation, voluntarily on the part of the citizen or involuntarily under duress of statute, is shadowy in United States constitutional law. Justice Story, in the course of an opinion, and Chancellor Kent, in his writings, accepted the ancient English doctrine of perpetual and unchangeable allegiance to the government of one's birth, a citizen being precluded from renouncing his allegiance without permission of that government. The pre-Civil War record on the issue is so vague because there was wide disagreement on the basis of national citizenship in the first place, with some contending that national citizenship was derivative from state citizenship, which would place the power of providing for expatriation in the state legislatures, and with others contending for the primacy of national citizenship, which would place the power in Congress. The citizenship basis was settled by the first sentence of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, but expatriation continued to be a muddled topic. An 1868 statute specifically recognized "the right of expatriation" by individuals, but it was directed to affirming the right of foreign nationals to expatriate themselves and to become naturalized United States citizens. An 1865 law provided for the forfeiture of the "rights of citizenship" of draft-dodgers and deserters, but whether the statute meant to deprive such persons of citizenship or of their civil rights is unclear. Beginning in 1940, however, Congress did enact laws designed to strip of their citizenship persons who committed treason, deserted the armed forces in wartime, left the country to evade the draft, or attempted to overthrow the Government by force or violence. In 1907, Congress provided that female citizens who married foreign citizens were to have their citizenship held "in abeyance" while they remained wedded but to be entitled to reclaim it when the marriage was dissolved.

About the simplest form of expatriation, the renunciation of citizenship by a person, there is no constitutional difficulty. "Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance." But while the Court has hitherto insisted on the voluntary character of the renunciation, it has sustained the power of Congress to prescribe conditions and circumstances the voluntary entering into of which constitutes renunciation; the person need not intend to renounce so long as he intended to do what he did in fact do.

The Court first encountered the constitutional issue of forced expatriation in the rather anomalous form of the statute, which placed in limbo the citizenship of any American female who married a foreigner. Sustaining the statute, the Court relied on the congressional foreign relations power exercised in order to prevent the development of situations that might entangle the United States in embarrassing or hostile relationships with a foreign country. Noting too the fictional merging of identity of husband and wife, the Court thought it well within congressional power to attach certain consequences to these actions, despite the woman's contrary intent and understanding at the time she entered the relationship.

Beginning in 1958, the Court had a running encounter with the provisions of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which prescribed expatriation for a lengthy series of actions. In 1958, a five-to-four decision sustained the power to divest a dual national of his United States citizenship because he had voted in an election in the other country of which he was a citizen. But at the same time, another five-to-four decision, in which a majority rationale was lacking, struck down punitive expatriation visited on persons convicted by court-martial of desertion from the armed forces in wartime. In the next case, the Court struck down another punitive expatriation visited on persons who, in time of war or emergency, leave or remain outside the country in order to evade military service. And in the following year, the Court held unconstitutional a section of the law that expatriated a naturalized citizen who returned to his native land and resided there continuously for a period of three years.

The cases up to this point had lacked a common rationale and would have seemed to permit even punitive expatriation under the proper circumstances. But, in Afroyim v. Rusk, a five-to-four majority overruled the 1958 decision permitting expatriation for voting in a foreign election and announced a constitutional rule against all but purely voluntary renunciation of United States citizenship. The majority ruled that the first sentence of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionally vested citizenship in every person "born or naturalized in the United States" and that Congress was powerless to take that citizenship away. The continuing vitality of this decision was called into question by another five- to-four decision in 1971, which technically distinguished Afroyim in upholding a congressionally-prescribed loss of citizenship visited upon a person who was statutorily naturalized "outside" the United States, and held not within the protection of the first sentence of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, while Afroyim was distinguished, the tenor of the majority opinion was hostile to its holding, and it may be that in a future case it will be overruled.

The issue, then, of the constitutionality of congressionally-prescribed expatriation must be taken as unsettled.


The Power of Congress to Exclude Aliens

The power of Congress "to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in" is absolute, being an attribute of the United States as a sovereign nation. "That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens, it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.... The United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory."

The power of Congress to prescribe the rules for exclusion or expulsion of aliens is a "fundamental sovereign attribute" which is "of a political character and therefore subject only to narrow judicial review." Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 , 101 n. 21 (1976); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 , 81 -82 (1976); Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 , 792 (1977). Although aliens are "an identifiable class of persons," who aside from the classification at issue "are already subject to disadvantages not shared by the remainder of the community," Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. at 102, Congress may treat them in ways that would violate the equal protection clause if a State should do it. Diaz, (residency requirement for welfare benefits); Fiallo, (sex and illegitimacy classifications). Nonetheless in Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. at 103, the Court observed that when the Federal Government asserts an overriding national interest as justification for a discriminatory rule that would violate the equal protection clause if adopted by a State, due process requires that it be shown that the rule was actually intended to serve that interest. The case struck down a classification that the Court thought justified by the interest asserted but that had not been imposed by a body charged with effectuating that interest. See Vergara v. Hampton, 581 F.2d 1281 (C.A. 7, 1978). See Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993) (construing statutes and treaty provisions restrictively to affirm presidential power to interdict and seize fleeing aliens on high seas to prevent them from entering U.S. waters).

Except for the Alien Act of 1798, Congress went almost a century without enacting laws regulating immigration into the United States. The first such statute, in 1875, barred convicts and prostitutes and was followed by a series of exclusions based on health, criminal, moral, economic, and subversion considerations. Another important phase was begun with passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which was not repealed until 1943. In 1924, Congress enacted into law a national origins quota formula which based the proportion of admittable aliens on the nationality breakdown of the 1920 census, which, of course, was heavily weighed in favor of English and northern European ancestry. This national origins quota system was in effect until it was repealed in 1965. The basic law remains the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which, with certain revisions in 1965 and later piecemeal alterations, regulates who may be admitted and under what conditions; the Act, it should be noted, contains a list of 31 excludable classes of aliens.

Numerous cases underscore the sweeping nature of the powers of the Federal Government to exclude aliens and to deport by administrative process persons in excluded classes. For example, in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, an order of the Attorney General excluding, on the basis of confidential information he would not disclose, a wartime bride, who was prima facie entitled to enter the United States, was held to be unreviewable by the courts. Nor were regulations on which the order was based invalid as an undue delegation of legislative power. "Normally Congress supplies the conditions of the privilege of entry into the United States. But because the power of exclusion of aliens is also inherent in the executive department of the sovereign, Congress may in broad terms authorize the executive to exercise the power, e.g., as was done here, for the best interest of the country during a time of national emergency. Executive officers may be entrusted with the duty of specifying the procedures for carrying out the congressional intent."However, when Congress has spelled out the basis for exclusion or deportation, the Court remains free to interpret the statute and review the administration of it and to apply it, often in a manner to mitigate the effects of the law on aliens.

Congress' power to admit aliens under whatever conditions it lays down is exclusive of state regulation. The States "can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states. State laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully within the United States conflict with this constitutionally derived federal power to regulate immigration, and have accordingly been held invalid." This principle, however, has not precluded all state regulations dealing with aliens. The power of Congress to legislate with respect to the conduct of alien residents is a concomitant of its power to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they may enter the United States, to establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as have entered in violation of law, and to commit the enforcement of such conditions and regulations to executive officers. It is not a power to lay down a special code of conduct for alien residents or to govern their private relations.

Yet Congress is empowered to assert a considerable degree of control over aliens after their admission to the country. By the Alien Registration Act of 1940, Congress provided that all aliens in the United States, fourteen years of age and over, should submit to registration and finger printing and willful failure to comply was made a criminal offense against the United States. This Act, taken in conjunction with other laws regulating immigration and naturalization, has constituted a comprehensive and uniform system for the regulation of all aliens.

An important benefit of this comprehensive regulation accruing to the alien is that it precludes state regulation that may well be more severe and burdensome. For example, in Hines v. Davidowitz, the Court voided a Pennsylvania law requiring the annual registration and fingerprinting of aliens but going beyond the subsequently-enacted federal law to require acquisition of an alien identification card that had to be carried at all times and to be exhibited to any police officer upon demand and to other licensing officers upon applications for such things as drivers' licenses. The Court did not squarely hold the State incapable of having such a law in the absence of federal law but appeared to lean in that direction. Another decision voided a Pennsylvania law limiting those eligible to welfare assistance to citizens and an Arizona law prescribing a fifteen-year durational residency period before an alien could be eligible for welfare assistance. Congress had provided, Justice Blackmun wrote for a unanimous Court, that persons who were likely to become public charges could not be admitted to the United States and that any alien who became a public charge within five years of his admission was to be deported unless he could show that the causes of his economic situation arose after his entry. Thus, in effect Congress had declared that lawfully admitted resident aliens who became public charges for causes arising after their entry were entitled to the full and equal benefit of all laws for the security of persons and property and the States were disabled from denying aliens these benefits.


Unlike the exclusion proceedings, deportation proceedings afford the alien a number of constitutional rights: a right against self-incrimination, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, guarantees against ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and cruel and unusual punishment, a right to bail, a right to procedural due process, a right to counsel, a right to notice of charges and hearing, as well as a right to cross- examine.

Notwithstanding these guarantees, the Supreme Court has upheld a number of statutory deportation measures as not unconstitutional. The Internal Security Act of 1950, in authorizing the Attorney General to hold in custody, without bail, aliens who are members of the Communist Party of the United States, pending determination as to their deportability, is not unconstitutional. Nor was it unconstitutional to deport under the Alien Registration Act of 1940 a legally resident alien because of membership in the Communist Party, although such membership ended before the enactment of the Act. Such application of the Act did not make it ex post facto, being but an exercise of the power of the United States to terminate its hospitality ad libitum. And a statutory provisionmaking it a felony for an alien against whom a specified order of deportation is outstanding "to willfully fail or refuse to make timely application for travel or other documents necessary to his departure" was not on its face void for "vagueness." An alien unlawfully in the country "has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation."


Persons Who May Be Released From Debt

In an early case on circuit, Justice Livingston suggested that inasmuch as the English statutes on the subject of bankruptcy from the time of Henry VIII down had applied only to traders it might "well be doubted, whether an act of Congress subjecting to such a law every description of persons within the United States, would comport with the spirit of the powers vested in them in relation to this subject." Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever accepted this limited view. The first bankruptcy law, passed in 1800, departed from the English practice to the extent of including bankers, brokers, factors and underwriters as well as traders. Asserting that the narrow scope of the English statutes was a mere matter of policy, which by no means entered into the nature of such laws, Justice Story defined bankruptcy legislation in the sense of the Constitution as a law making provisions for cases of persons failing to pay their debts.

This interpretation has been ratified by the Supreme Court. In Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, it held valid the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, which provided that persons other than traders might become bankrupts and that this might be done on voluntary petition. The Court has given tacit approval to the extension of the bankruptcy laws to cover practically all classes of persons and corporations, including even municipal corporations and wage-earning individuals. The Bankruptcy Act has, in fact been amended to provide a wage- earners' extension plan to deal with the unique problems of debtors who derive their livelihood primarily from salaries or commissions. In furthering the implementation of this plan, the Supreme Court has held that a wage earner may make use of it, notwithstanding the fact he has been previously discharged in bankruptcy within the last six years.

Liberalization of Relief Granted and Expansion of the Rights of the Trustee

As the coverage of the bankruptcy laws has been expanded, the scope of the relief afforded to debtors has been correspondingly enlarged. The act of 1800, like its English antecedents, was designed primarily for the benefit of creditors. Beginning with the act of 1841, which opened the door to voluntary petitions, rehabilitation of the debtor has become an object of increasing concern to Congress. An adjudication in bankruptcy is no longer requisite to the exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction. In 1867, the debtor for the first time was permitted, either before or after adjudication of bankruptcy, to propose terms of composition that would become binding upon acceptance by a designated majority of his creditors and confirmation by a bankruptcy court. This measure was held constitutional, as were later acts, which provided for the reorganization of corporations that are insolvent or unable to meet their debts as they mature, and for the composition and extension of debts in proceedings for the relief of individual farmer debtors.

Nor is the power of Congress limited to adjustment of the rights of creditors. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the rights of a purchaser at a judicial sale of the debtor's property are within reach of the bankruptcy power, and may be modified by a reasonable extension of the period for redemption from such sale. Moreover, the Court expanded the bankruptcy court's power over the property of the estate by affording the trustee affirmative relief on counterclaim against a creditor filing a claim against the estate.

Underlying most Court decisions and statutes in this area is the desire to achieve equity and fairness in the distribution of the bankrupt's funds. United States v. Speers, codified by an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, furthered this objective by strengthening the position of the trustee as regards the priority of a federal tax lien unrecorded at the time of bankruptcy. The Supreme Court has held, in other cases dealing with the priority of various creditors' claims, that claims arising from the tort of the receiver is an "actual and necessary" cost of administration, that benefits under a nonparticipating annuity plan are not wages and are therefore not given priority, and that when taxes are allowed against a bankrupt's estate, penalties due because of the trustee's failure to pay the taxes incurred while operating a bankrupt business are also allowable. The Court's attitude with regard to these and other developments is perhaps best summarized in the opinion in Continental Bank v. Rock Island Ry., where Justice Sutherland wrote, on behalf of a unanimous court: "[T]hese acts, far-reaching though they may be, have not gone beyond the limit of Congressional power; but rather have constituted extensions into a field whose boundaries may not yet be fully revealed."

Constitutional Limitations on the Bankruptcy Power

In the exercise of its bankruptcy powers, Congress must not transgress the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. The Bankruptcy Act provides that oral testimony cannot be used in violation of the bankrupt's right against self-incrimination. Congress may not take from a creditor specific property previously acquired from a debtor, nor circumscribe the creditor's right to such an unreasonable extent as to deny him due process of law; this principle, however, is subject to the Supreme Court's finding that a bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction for ordering the surrender of voidable preferences when the trustee successfully counterclaims to a claim filed by the creditor receiving such preferences.

Since Congress may not supersede the power of a State to determine how a corporation shall be formed, supervised, and dissolved, a corporation, which has been dissolved by a decree of a state court, may not file a petition for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Act. But Congress may impair the obligation of a contract and may extend the provisions of the bankruptcy laws to contracts already entered into at the time of their passage. Although it may not subject the fiscal affairs of a political subdivision of a State to the control of a federal bankruptcy court, Congress may empower such courts to entertain petitions by taxing agencies or instrumentalities for a composition of their indebtedness where the State has consented to the proceeding and the federal court is not authorized to interfere with the fiscal or governmental affairs of such petitioners.Congress may recognize the laws of the State relating to dower, exemption, the validity of mortgages, priorities of payment and similar matters, even though such recognition leads to different results from State to State; for although bankruptcy legislation must be uniform, the uniformity required is geographic, not personal.

The power of Congress to vest the adjudication of bankruptcy claims in entities not having the constitutional status of Article III federal courts is unsettled. At least, it may not give to non-Article III courts the authority to hear state law claims made subject to federal jurisdiction only because of their relevance to a bankruptcy proceeding.

Constitutional Status of State Insolvency Laws: Preemption

Prior to 1898, Congress exercised the power to establish "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy" only intermittently. The first national bankruptcy law was not enacted until 1800 and was repealed in 1803; the second was passed in 1841 and was repealed two years later; a third was enacted in 1867 and repealed in 1878. Thus, during the first eighty- nine years under the Constitution, a national bankruptcy law was in existence only sixteen years altogether. Consequently, the most important issue of interpretation that arose during that period concerned the effect of the clause on state law.

The Supreme Court ruled at an early date that in the absence of congressional action the States may enact insolvency laws, since it is not the mere existence of the power but rather its exercise that is incompatible with the exercise of the same power by the States. Later cases settled further that the enactment of a national bankruptcy law does not invalidate state laws in conflict therewith but serves only to relegate them to a state of suspended animation with the result that upon repeal of the national statute they again come into operation without re-enactment.

A State is, of course, without power to enforce any law governing bankruptcies which impairs the obligation of contracts, extends to persons or property outside its jurisdiction, or conflicts with the national bankruptcy laws. Giving effect to the policy of the federal statute, the Court has held that a state statute regulating this distribution of property of an insolvent was suspended by that law, and that a state court was without power to proceed with pending foreclosure proceedings after a farmer-debtor had filed a petition in federal bankruptcy court for a composition or extension of time to pay his debts. A state court injunction ordering a defendant to clean up a waste-disposal site was held to be a "liability on a claim" subject to discharge under the bankruptcy law, after the State had appointed a receiver to take charge of the defendant's property and comply with the injunction. A state law governing fraudulent transfers was found to be compatible with the federal law.

Substantial disagreement has marked the actions of the Justices in one area, however, resulting in three five-to-four decisions first upholding and then voiding state laws providing that a discharge in bankruptcy was not to relieve a judgment arising out of an automobile accident upon pain of suffering suspension of his driver's license. The state statutes were all similar enactments of the Uniform Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, which authorizes the suspension of the license of any driver who fails to satisfy a judgment against himself growing out of a traffic accident; a section of the law specifically provides that a discharge in bankruptcy will not relieve the debtor of the obligation to pay and the consequence of license suspension for failure to pay. In the first two decisions, the Court majorities decided that the object of the state law was not to see that such judgments were paid but was rather a device to protect the public against irresponsible driving.The last case rejected this view and held that the Act's sole emphasis was one of providing leverage for the collection of damages from drivers and as such was in fact intended to and did frustrate the purpose of the federal bankruptcy law, the giving of a fresh start unhampered by debt.

If a State desires to participate in the assets of a bankruptcy, it must submit to the appropriate requirements of the bankruptcy court with respect to the filing of claims by a designated date. It cannot assert a claim for taxes by filing a demand at a later date.

Clauses 5 and 6. Money

Clauses 5 and 6. The Congress shall have Power *** To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

*** To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.

Fiscal and Monetary Powers of Congress

Coinage, Weights, and Measures

The power "to coin money" and "regulate the value thereof" has been broadly construed to authorize regulation of every phase of the subject of currency. Congress may charter banks and endow them with the right to issue circulating notes, and it may restrain the circulation of notes not issued under its own authority. To this end it may impose a prohibitive tax upon the circulation of the notes of state banks or of municipal corporations. It may require the surrender of gold coin and of gold certificates in exchange for other currency not redeemable in gold. A plaintiff who sought payment for the gold coin and certificates thus surrendered in an amount measured by the higher market value of gold was denied recovery on the ground that he had not proved that he would suffer any actual loss by being compelled to accept an equivalent amount of other currency. Inasmuch as "every contract for the payment of money, simply, is necessarily subject to the constitutional power of the government over the currency, whatever that power may be, and the obligation of the parties is, therefore, assumed with reference to that power," the Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to make Treasury notes legal tender in satisfaction of antecedent debts, and, many years later, to abrogate the clauses in private contracts calling for payment in gold coin, even though such contracts were executed before the legislation was passed. The power to coin money also imports authority to maintain such coinage as a medium of exchange at home, and to forbid its diversion to other uses by defacement, melting or exportation.

Punishment of Counterfeiting

In its affirmative aspect, this clause has been given a narrow interpretation; it has been held not to cover the circulation of counterfeit coin or the possession of equipment susceptible of use for making counterfeit coin. At the same time, the Supreme Court has rebuffed attempts to read into this provision a limitation upon either the power of the States or upon the powers of Congress under the preceding clause. It has ruled that a State may punish the issuance of forged coins. On the ground that the power of Congress to coin money imports "the correspondent and necessary power and obligation to protect and to preserve in its purity this constitutional currency for the benefit of the nation," it has sustained federal statutes penalizing the importation or circulation of counterfeit coin, or the willing and conscious possession of dies in the likeness of those used for making coins of the United States. In short, the above clause is entirely superfluous. Congress would have had the power it purports to confer under the necessary and proper clause; and the same is the case with the other enumerated crimes it is authorized to punish. The enumeration was unnecessary and is not exclusive.

Borrowing Power Versus Fiscal Power

Usually the aggregate of the fiscal and monetary powers of the National Government-to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money and to coin money and regulate the value thereof- have reinforced each other, and, cemented by the necessary and proper clause, have provided a secure foundation for acts of Congress chartering banks and other financial institutions, or making its treasury notes legal tender in the payment of antecedent debts. But in 1935, the opposite situation arose-one in which the power to regulate the value of money collided with the obligation incurred in the exercise of the power to borrow money. By a vote of eight-to-one the Supreme Court held that the obligation assumed by the exercise of the latter was paramount, and could not be repudiated to effectuate the monetary policies of Congress. In a concurring opinion, Justice Stone declined to join with the majority in suggesting that "the exercise of the sovereign power to borrow money on credit, which does not override the sovereign immunity from suit, may nevertheless preclude or impede the exercise of another sovereign power, to regulate the value of money; or to suggest that although there is and can be no present cause of action upon the repudiated gold clause, its obligation is nevertheless, in some manner and to some extent, not stated, superior to the power to regulate the currency which we now hold to be superior to the obligation of the bonds." However, with a view to inducing purchase of savings bonds, the sale of which is essential to successful management of the national debt, Congress is competent to authorize issuance of regulations creating a right of survivorship in such bonds registered in co-ownership form, and such regulations preempt provisions of state law prohibiting married couples from utilizing the survivorship privilege whenever bonds are paid out of community property.

Clause 7. Post Office

Clause 7. The Congress shall have Power *** To establish Post Offices and post roads.

Postal Power


The great question raised in the early days with reference to the postal clause concerned the meaning to be given to the word "establish"-did it confer upon Congress the power to construct post offices and post roads, or only the power to designate from existing places and routes those that should serve as post offices and post roads? As late as 1855, Justice McLean stated that this power "has generally been considered as exhausted in the designation of roads on which the mails are to be transported," and concluded that neither under the commerce power nor the power to establish post roads could Congress construct a bridge over a navigable water. A decade earlier, however, the Court, without passing upon the validity of the original construction of the Cumberland Road, held that being "charged . . . with the transportation of the mails," Congress could enter a valid compact with the State of Pennsylvania regarding the use and upkeep of the portion of the road lying in the State. The debate on the question was terminated in 1876 by the decision in Kohl v. United States, sustaining a proceeding by the United States to appropriate a parcel of land in Cincinnati as a site for a post office and courthouse.

Power To Protect the Mails

The postal powers of Congress embrace all measures necessary to insure the safe and speedy transit and prompt delivery of the mails. And not only are the mails under the protection of the National Government, they are in contemplation of law its property. This principle was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1845 in holding that wagons carrying United States mail were not subject to a state toll tax imposed for use of the Cumberland Road pursuant to a compact with the United States. Half a century later it was availed of as one of the grounds on which the national executive was conceded the right to enter the national courts and demand an injunction against the authors of any wide-spread disorder interfering with interstate commerce and the transmission of the mails.

Prompted by the efforts of Northern anti-slavery elements to disseminate their propaganda in the Southern States through the mails, President Jackson, in his annual message to Congress in 1835, suggested "the propriety of passing such a law as will prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation in the Southern States, through the mail, of incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection." In the Senate, John C. Calhoun resisted this recommendation, taking the position that it belonged to the States and not to Congress to determine what is and what is not calculated to disturb their security. He expressed the fear that if Congress might determine what papers were incendiary, and as such prohibit their circulation through the mail, it might also determine what were not incendiary and enforce their circulation. On this point his reasoning would appear to be vindicated by such decisions as those denying the right of the States to prevent the importation of alcoholic beverages from other States.

Power To Prevent Harmful Use of the Postal Facilities

In 1872, Congress passed the first of a series of acts to exclude from the mails publications designed to defraud the public or corrupt its morals. In the pioneer case of Ex parte Jackson, the Court sustained the exclusion of circulars relating to lotteries on the general ground that "the right to designate what shall be carried necessarily involves the right to determine what shall be excluded." The leading fraud order case, decided in 1904, held to the same effect. Pointing out that it is "an indispensable adjunct to a civil government," to supply postal facilities, the Court restated its premise that the "legislative body in thus establishing a postal service may annex such conditions . . . as it chooses."

Later cases first qualified these sweeping assertions and then overturned them, holding Government operation of the mails to be subject to constitutional limitations. In upholding requirements that publishers of newspapers and periodicals seeking second-class mailing privileges file complete information regarding ownership, indebtedness, and circulation and that all paid advertisements in the publications be marked as such, the Court emphasized that these provisions were reasonably designed to safeguard the second-class privilege from exploitation by mere advertising publications. Chief Justice White warned that the Court by no means intended to imply that it endorsed the Government's "broad contentions concerning . . . the classification of the mails, or by the way of condition . . ." Again, when the Court sustained an order of the Postmaster General excluding from the second- class privilege a newspaper he had found to have published material in contravention of the Espionage Act of 1917, the claim of absolute power in Congress to withhold the privilege was sedulously avoided.

A unanimous Court transformed these reservations into a holding in Lamont v. Postmaster General, in which it struck down a statute authorizing the Post Office to detain mail it determined to be "communist political propaganda" and to forward it to the addressee only if he notified the Post Office he wanted to see it. Noting that Congress was not bound to operate a postal service, the Court observed that while it did, it was bound to observe constitutional guarantees. The statute violated the First Amendment because it inhibited the right of persons to receive any information which they wished to receive.

On the other hand, a statute authorizing persons to place their names on a list in order to reject receipt of obscene or sexually suggestive materials is constitutional, because no sender has a right to foist his material on any unwilling receiver. But, as in other areas, postal censorship systems must contain procedural guarantees sufficient to ensure prompt resolution of disputes about the character of allegedly objectionable material consistently with the First Amendment.

Exclusive Power as an Adjunct to Other Powers

In the cases just reviewed, it was attempted to close the mails to communication which were deemed to be harmful. A much broader power of exclusion was asserted in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. To induce compliance with the regulatory requirements of that act, Congress denied the privilege of using the mails for any purpose to holding companies that failed to obey that law, irrespective of the character of the material to be carried. Viewing the matter realistically, the Supreme Court treated this provision as a penalty. While it held this statute constitutional because the regulations whose infractions were thus penalized were themselves valid, it declared that "Congress may not exercise its control over the mails to enforce a requirement which lies outside its constitutional province...."

State Regulations Affecting the Mails

In determining the extent to which state laws may impinge upon persons or corporations whose services are utilized by Congress in executing its postal powers, the task of the Supreme Court has been to determine whether particular measures are consistent with the general policies indicated by Congress. Broadly speaking, the Court has approved regulations having a trivial or remote relation to the operation of the postal service, while disallowing those constituting a serious impediment to it. Thus, a state statute, which granted to one company an exclusive right to operate a telegraph business in the State, was found to be incompatible with a federal law, which, in granting to any telegraph company the right to construct its lines upon post roads, was interpreted as a prohibition of state monopolies in a field Congress was entitled to regulate in the exercise of its combined power over commerce and post roads.

An Illinois statute which, as construed by the state courts, required an interstate mail train to make a detour of seven miles in order to stop at a designated station, also was held to be an unconstitutional interference with the power of Congress under this clause. But a Minnesota statute requiring intrastate trains to stop at county seats was found to be unobjectionable.

Local laws classifying postal workers with railroad employees for the purpose of determining a railroad's liability for personal injuries, or subjecting a union of railway mail clerks to a general law forbidding any "labor organization" to deny any person membership because of his race, color or creed, have been held not to conflict with national legislation or policy in this field. Despite the interference pro tanto with the performance of a federal function, a State may arrest a postal employee charged with murder while he is engaged in carrying out his official duties, but it cannot punish a person for operating a mail truck over its highways without procuring a driver's license from state authorities.

Clause 8. Copyrights and Patents

Clause 8. The Congress shall have Power *** To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Copyrights and Patents

Scope of the Power

This clause is the foundation upon which the national patent and copyright laws rest, although it uses neither of those terms. So far as patents are concerned, modern legislation harks back to the Statute of Monopolies of 1624, whereby Parliament endowed inventors with the sole right to their inventions for fourteen years. Copyright law, in turn, traces back to the English Statute of 1710, which secured to authors of books the sole right of publishing them for designated periods. These English statutes curtailed the royal prerogative in the creation and bestowal of monopolistic privileges, and the Copyright and Patent Clause similarly curtails congressional power with regard both to subject matter and to the purpose and duration of the rights granted. Its power is limited with regard both to subject matter and to the purpose and duration of the rights granted. Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts. The concept of originality is central to copyright, and it is a constitutional requirement Congress may not exceed. While Congress may grant exclusive rights only for a limited period, it may extend the term upon the expiration of the period originally specified, and in so doing may protect the rights of purchasers and assignees.

The constitutional limits, however, do not prevent the Court from being highly deferential to congressional exercise of its power. "It is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors," the Court has said. "Satisfied" in Eldred v. Ashcroft that the Copyright Term Extension Act did not violate the "limited times" prescription, the Court saw the only remaining question as whether the enactment was "a rational exercise of the legislative authority conferred by the Copyright Clause." The Act, the Court concluded, "reflects judgments of a kind Congress typically makes, judgments we cannot dismiss as outside the Legislature's domain." Moreover, the limitation on the duration of copyrights and patents is largely unenforceable. The protection period may extend well beyond the life of the author or inventor. Congress may extend the duration of existing copyrights and patents, and in so doing may protect the rights of purchasers and assignees.

Originality, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses some minimal degree of creativity.... To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice." Id. at 345. First clearly articulated in The Trade Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 , 94 (1879), and Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 , 58 - 60 (1884), the requirement is expressed in nearly every copyright opinion, but its forceful iteration in Feist was noteworthy, because originality is a statutory requirement as well, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), and it was unnecessary to discuss the concept in constitutional terms.

Patentable Discoveries

The protection traditionally afforded by acts of Congress under this clause has been limited to new and useful inventions, and while a patentable invention is a mental achievement, for an idea to be patentable it must have first taken physical form.Despite the fact that the Constitution uses the term "discovery" rather than "invention," a patent may not be issued for the discovery of a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature. "If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end." As for the mental processes which have been traditionally required, the Court has held in the past that an invention must display "more ingenuity . . . than the work of a mechanic skilled in the art;" and while combination patents have been at times sustained, the accumulation of old devices is patentable "only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts." Though "inventive genius" and slightly varying language have been appearing in judicial decisions for almost a century, "novelty" and "utility" has been the primary statutory test since the Patent Act of 1793. With Congress' enactment of the Patent Act of 1952, however, § 103 of the Act required that an innovation be of a "nonobvious" nature, that is, it must not be an improvement that would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art. This alteration of the standard of patentability was perceived by some as overruling previous Supreme Court cases requiring perhaps a higher standard for obtaining a patent, but the Court itself interpreted the provision as codifying its earlier holding in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, in Graham v. John Deere Co. The Court in this case said: "Innovation, advancement, and things which add to the sum of useful knowledge are inherent requisites in a patent system which by constitutional command must 'promote the Progress of ... useful Arts.' This is the standard expressed in the Constitution and it may not be ignored." Congressional requirements on patentability, then, are conditions and tests that must fall within the constitutional standard. Underlying the constitutional tests and congressional conditions for patentability is the balancing of two inter-ests-the interest of the public in being protected against monopolies and in having ready access to and use of new items versus the interest of the country, as a whole, in encouraging invention by rewarding creative persons for their innovations. By declaring a constitutional standard of patentability, however, the Court, rather than Congress, will be doing the ultimate weighing. As for the clarity of the patentability standard, the three-fold test of utility, novelty and advancement seems to have been made less clear by the Supreme Court's recent rejuvenation of "invention" as a standard of patentability.

Procedure in Issuing Patents

The standard of patentability is a constitutional standard, and the question of the validity of a patent is a question of law. Congress may authorize the issuance of a patent for an invention by a special, as well as by general, law, provided the question as to whether the patentees device is in truth an invention is left open to investigation under the general law. The function of the Commissioner of Patents in issuing letters patent is deemed to be quasi-judicial in character. Hence an act granting a right of appeal from the Commission to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is not unconstitutional as conferring executive power upon a judicial body. The primary responsibility, however, for weeding out unpatentable devices rests in the Patent Office. The present system of "de novo" hearings before the Court of Appeals allows the applicant to present new evidence which the Patent Office has not heard, thus making somewhat amorphous the central responsibility.

Nature and Scope of the Right Secured

The leading case bearing on the nature of the rights which Congress is authorized to secure is that of Wheaton v. Peters. Wheaton charged Peters with having infringed his copyright on the twelve volumes of "Wheaton's Reports," wherein are reported the decisions of the United States Supreme Court for the years from 1816 to 1827 inclusive. Peters' defense turned on the proposition that inasmuch as Wheaton had not complied with all of the requirements of the act of Congress, his alleged copyright was void. Wheaton, while denying this assertion of fact, further contended that the statute was only intended to secure him in his pre-existent rights at common law. These at least, he claimed, the Court should protect. A divided Court held in favor of Peters on the legal question. It denied, in the first place, that there was any principle of the common law that protected an author in the sole right to continue to publish a work once published. It denied, in the second place, that there is any principle of law, common or otherwise, which pervades the Union except such as are embodied in the Constitution and the acts of Congress. Nor, in the third place, it held, did the word "securing" in the Constitution recognize the alleged common law principle Wheaton invoked. The exclusive right which Congress is authorized to secure to authors and inventors owes its existence solely to the acts of Congress securing it, from which it follows that the rights granted by a patent or copyright are subject to such qualifications and limitations as Congress, in its un-hampered consultation of the public interest, sees fit to impose.

The Court's "reluctance to expand [copyright] protection without explicit legislative guidance" controlled its decision in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, in which it held that the manufacture and sale of video tape (or cassette) recorders for home use do not constitute "contributory" infringement of the copyright in television programs. Copyright protection, the Court reiterated, is "wholly statutory," and courts should be "circumspect" in extending protections to new technology. The Court refused to hold that contributory infringement could occur simply through the supplying of the devices with which someone else could infringe, especially in view of the fact that VCRs are capable of substantial noninfringing "fair use," e.g., time shifting of television viewing.

In giving to authors the exclusive right to dramatize any of their works, Congress did not exceed its powers under this clause. Even as applied to pantomine dramatization by means of silent motion pictures, the act was sustained against the objection that it extended the copyright to ideas rather than to the words in which they were clothed. But the copyright of the description of an art in a book was held not to lay a foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself. The latter can be protected, if at all, only by letters patent. Since copyright is a species of property distinct from the ownership of the equipment used in making copies of the matter copyrighted, the sale of a copperplate under execution did not pass any right to print and publish the map which the copperplate was designed to produce. A patent right may, however, be subjected, by bill in equity, to payment of a judgment debt of the patentee.

Power of Congress Over Patents and Copyrights

Letters patent for a new invention or discovery in the arts confer upon the patentee an exclusive property in the patented invention which cannot be appropriated or used by the Government without just compensation. Congress may, however, modify rights under an existing patent, provided vested property rights are not thereby impaired, but it does not follow that it may authorize an inventor to recall rights that he has granted to others or re-invest in him rights of property that he had previously conveyed for a valuable and fair consideration. Furthermore, the rights the present statutes confer are subject to the antitrust laws, though it can hardly be said that the cases in which the Court has endeavored to draw the line between the rights claimable by patentees and the kind of monopolistic privileges which are forbidden by those acts exhibit entire consistency in their holdings.

State Power Affecting Patents and Copyrights

Displacement of state police or taxing powers by federal patent or copyright has been a source of considerable dispute. Ordinarily, rights secured to inventors must be enjoyed in subordination to the general authority of the States over all property within their limits. A state statute requiring the condemnation of illuminating oils inflammable at less than 130 degrees Fahrenheit was held not to interfere with any right secured by the patent laws, although the oil for which the patent was issued could not be made to comply with state specifications. In the absence of federal legislation, a State may prescribe reasonable regulations for the transfer of patent rights, so as to protect its citizens from fraud. Hence, a requirement of state law that the words "given for a patent right" appear on the face of notes given in payment for such right is not unconstitutional. Royalties received from patents or copyrights are subject to a nondiscriminatory state income tax, a holding to the contrary being overruled.

State power to protect things not patented or copyrighted under federal law has been buffeted under changing Court doctrinal views. In two major cases, the Court held that a State could not utilize unfair competition laws to prevent or punish the copying of products not entitled to a patent. Emphasizing the necessity for a uniform national policy and adverting to the monopolistic effects of the state protection, the Court inferred that because Congress had not extended the patent laws to the material at issue, federal policy was to promote free access when the materials were thus in the public domain. But, in Goldstein v. California, the Court distinguished the two prior cases and held that the determination whether a state "tape piracy" statute conflicted with the federal copyright statute depended upon the existence of a specific congressional intent to forbid state protection of the "writing" there involved. Its consideration of the statute and of its legislative history convinced the Court that Congress in protecting certain "writings" and in not protecting others bespoke no intention that federally unprotected materials should enjoy no state protection, only that Congress "has left the area unattended." Similar analysis was used to sustain the application of a state trade secret law to protect a chemical process, that was patentable but not patented, from utilization by a commercial rival, which had obtained the process from former employees of the company, all of whom had signed agreements not to reveal the process. The Court determined that protection of the process by state law was not incompatible with the federal patent policy of encouraging invention and public use of patented inventions, inasmuch as the trade secret law serves other interests not similarly served by the patent law and where it protects matter clearly patentable it is not likely to deter applications for patents.

Returning to the Sears and Compco emphasis, the Court unanimously, in Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., reasserted that "efficient operation of the federal patent system depends upon substantially free trade in publicly known, unpatented design and utilitarian conceptions." At the same time, however, the Court attempted to harmonize Goldstein, Kewanee, and other decisions: there is room for state regulation of the use of unpatented designs if those regulations are "necessary to promote goals outside the contemplation of the federal patent scheme." What States are forbidden to do is to "offer patent-like protection to intellectual creations which would otherwise remain unprotected as a matter of federal law." A state law "aimed directly at preventing the exploitation of the [unpatented] design" is invalid as impinging on an area of pervasive federal regulation.

Trade-Marks and Advertisements

In the famous Trade-Mark Cases, decided in 1879, the Supreme Court held void acts of Congress, which, in apparent reliance upon this clause, extended the protection of the law to trademarks registered in the Patent Office. "The ordinary trade mark," said Justice Miller for the Court, "has no necessary relation to invention or discovery;" nor is it to be classified "under the head of writings of authors." It does not "depend upon novelty, invention, discovery, or any work of the brain." Not many years later the Court, again speaking through Justice Miller, ruled that a photograph may be constitutionally copyrighted,while still more recently a circus poster was held to be entitled to the same protection. In answer to the objection of the circuit court that a lithograph which "has no other use than that of a mere advertisement ... (would not be within) the meaning of the Constitution," Justice Holmes summoned forth the shades of Velasquez, Whistler, Rembrandt, Ruskin, Degas, and others in support of the proposition that it is not for the courts to attempt to judge the worth of pictorial illustrations outside the narrowest and most obvious limits.

Clause 9. Creation of Courts

Clause 9. The Congress shall have Power *** To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; (see Article III).

In general

See discussion "The Power of Congress to Control the Federal Courts " under Article III, § 2, cl. 2, infra.

Clause 10. Maritime Crimes

Clause 10. The Congress shall have Power *** To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.

Piracies, Felonies, and Offenses Against the Law of Nations

Origin of the Clause

"When the United States ceased to be a part of the British empire, and assumed the character of an independent nation, they became subject to that system of rules which reason, morality, and custom had established among civilized nations of Europe, as their public law.... The faithful observance of this law is essential to national character...."These words of the Chancellor Kent expressed the view of the binding character of international law that was generally accepted at the time the Constitution was adopted. During the Revolutionary War, Congress took cognizance of all matters arising under the law of nations and professed obedience to that law. Under the Articles of Confederation, it was given exclusive power to appoint courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, but no provision was made for dealing with offenses against the law of nations. The draft of the Constitution submitted to the Convention of 1787 by its Committee of Detail empowered Congress "to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and the punishment of counterfeiting the coin of the United States, and of offences against the law of nations." In the debate on the floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, "felonies" and the "law of nations," were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.

Definition of Offenses

The fact that the Constitutional Convention considered it necessary to give Congress authority to define offenses against the law of nations does not mean that in every case Congress must undertake to codify that law or mark its precise boundaries before prescribing punishments for infractions thereof. An act punishing "the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations" was held to be an appropriate exercise of the constitutional authority to "define and punish" the offense, since it adopted by reference the sufficiently precise definition of International Law. Similarly, in Ex parte Quirin, the Court found that by the reference in the Fifteenth Article of War to "offenders or offenses that . . . by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions . . .," Congress had "exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals." Where, conversely, Congress defines with particularity a crime which is "an offense against the law of nations," the law is valid, even if it contains no recital disclosing that it was enacted pursuant to this clause. Thus, the duty which the law of nations casts upon every government to prevent a wrong being done within its own dominion to another nation with which it is at peace, or to the people thereof, was found to furnish a sufficient justification for the punishment of the counterfeiting within the United States, of notes, bonds, and other securities of foreign governments.

Extraterritorial Reach of the Power

Since this clause contains the only specific grant of power to be found in the Constitution for the punishment of offenses outside the territorial limits of the United States, a lower federal court held in 1932 that the general grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction by Article III, § 2, could not be construed as extending either the legislative or judicial power of the United States to cover offenses committed on vessels outside the United States but not on the high seas. Reversing that decision, the Supreme Court held that this provision "cannot be deemed to be a limitation on the powers, either legislative or judicial, conferred on the National Government by Article III, § 2. The two clauses are the result of separate steps independently taken in the Convention, by which the jurisdiction in admiralty, previously divided between the Confederation and the States, was transferred to the National Government. It would be a surprising result, and one plainly not anticipated by the framers or justified by principles which ought to govern the interpretation of a constitution devoted to the redistribution of governmental powers, if part of them were lost in the process of transfer. To construe the one clause as limiting rather than supplementing the other would be to ignore their history, and without effecting any discernible purpose of their enactment, to deny to both the States and the National Government powers which were common attributes of sovereignty before the adoption of the Constitution. The result would be to deny to both the power to define and punish crimes of less gravity than felonies committed on vessels of the United States while on the high seas, and crimes of every grade committed on them while in foreign territorial waters." Within the meaning of this section, an offense is committed on the high seas even where the vessel on which it occurs is lying at anchor on the road in the territorial waters of another country.

Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. War; Military Establishment

Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. The Congress shall have power *** ;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.

To provide and maintain a Navy.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.

The War Power

Source and Scope

Three Theories.-Three different views regarding the source of the war power found expression in the early years of the Constitution and continued to vie for supremacy for nearly a century and a half. Writing in The Federalist, Hamilton elaborated the theory that the war power is an aggregate of the particular powers granted by Article I, § 8. Not many years later, in 1795, the argument was advanced that the war power of the National Government is an attribute of sovereignty and hence not dependent upon the affirmative grants of the written Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall appears to have taken a still different view, namely that the power to wage war is implied from the power to declare it. In McCulloch v. Maryland, he listed the power "to declare and conduct a war" as one of the "enumerated powers" from which the authority to charter the Bank of the United States was deduced. During the era of the Civil War, the two latter theories were both given countenance by the Supreme Court. Speaking for four Justices in Ex parte Milligan, Chief Justice Chase described the power to declare war as "necessarily" extending "to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success, except such as interferes with the command of the forces and conduct of campaigns." In another case, adopting the terminology used by Lincoln in his Message to Congress on July 4, 1861,the Court referred to "the war power" as a single unified power.

An Inherent Power.-Thereafter, we find the phrase, "the war power," being used by both Chief Justice White and Chief Justice Hughes, the former declaring the power to be "complete and undivided." Not until 1936, however, did the Court explain the logical basis for imputing such an inherent power to the Federal Government. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., the reasons for this conclusion were stated by Justice Sutherland as follows: "As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Even before the Declaration, the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency-namely, the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies. That agency exercised the powers of war and peace, raised an army, created a navy, and finally adopted the Declaration of Independence.... It results that the investment of the Federal Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The power to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the Federal Government as necessary concomitants of nationality."

A Complexus of Granted Powers.-In Lichter v. United States, on the other hand, the Court speaks of the "war powers" of Congress. Upholding the Renegotiation Act, it declared that: "In view of this power 'To raise and support Armies, . . . and the power granted in the same Article of the Constitution 'to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers', . . . the only question remaining is whether the Renegotiation Act was a law 'necessary and proper for carrying into Execution' the war powers of Congress and especially its power to support armies." In a footnote, it listed the Preamble, the necessary and proper clause, the provisions authorizing Congress to lay taxes and provide for the common defense, to declare war, and to provide and maintain a navy, together with the clause designating the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, as being "among the many other provisions implementing the Congress and the President with powers to meet the varied demands of war...."

Declaration of War

In the early draft of the Constitution presented to the Convention by its Committee of Detail, Congress was empowered "to make war." Although there were solitary suggestions that the power should better be vested in the President alone, in the Senate alone, or in the President and the Senate, the sentiment of the Convention, as best we can determine from the limited notes of the proceedings, was that the potentially momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be called up only by the concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress. In contrast to the English system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual; in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, they did not wish to forego entirely the advantages of executive efficiency nor to entrust the matter solely to a branch so close to popular passions.

The result of these conflicting considerations was that the Convention amended the clause so as to give Congress the power to "declare war." Although this change could be read to give Congress the mere formal function of recognizing a state of hostilities, in the context of the Convention proceedings it appears more likely the change was intended to insure that the President was empowered to repel sudden attacks without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war was vested exclusively in the President.

An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war.Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . ." But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view.

Sixty years later, the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of the Southern ports instituted by Lincoln in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session. Congress had subsequently ratified Lincoln's action, so that it was unnecessary for the Court to consider the constitutional basis of the President's action in the absence of congressional authorization, but the Court nonetheless approved, five-to-four, the blockade order as an exercise of Presidential power alone, on the ground that a state of war was a fact. "The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact." The minority challenged this doctrine on the ground that while the President could unquestionably adopt such measures as the laws permitted for the enforcement of order against insurgency, Congress alone could stamp an insurrection with the character of war and thereby authorize the legal consequences ensuing from a state of war.

The view of the majority was proclaimed by a unanimous Court a few years later when it became necessary to ascertain the exact dates on which the war began and ended. The Court, the Chief Justice said, must "refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken. The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second."

These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnam War has been whether the >President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration. The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented, and the lower courts generally refused, on "political question" grounds, to adjudicate the matter. In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.

During the 1980s, the courts were no more receptive to suits, many by Members of Congress, seeking to obtain a declaration of the President's powers. The political question doctrine as well as certain discretionary authorities were relied on. See, e.g., Crockett v. Reagan, 558 F. Supp. 893 (D.D. C. 1982) (military aid to El Salvador), affd. 720 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1251 (1984); Conyers v. Reagan, 578 F. Supp. 324 (D.D. C. 1984) (invasion of Grenada), dismissed as moot, 765 F.2d 1124 (D.C.Cir. 1985); Lowry v. Reagan, 676 F. Supp. 333 (D.D.C. 1987) (reflagging and military escort operation in Persian Gulf), affd. No. 87-5426 (D.C.Cir. 1988); Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990) (U.S. Saudia Arabia/ Persian Gulf deployment).

The Power to Raise and Maintain Armed Forces

Purpose of Specific Grants

The clauses of the Constitution, which give Congress authority to raise and support armies, and so forth, were not inserted to endow the national government rather than the States with the power to do these things but to designate the department of the Federal Government which would exercise the powers. As we have noted above, the English king was endowed with the power not only to initiate war but the power to raise and maintain armies and navies. Aware historically that these powers had been utilized to the detriment of the liberties and well-being of Englishmen and aware that in the English Declaration of Rights of 1688 it was insisted that standing armies could not be maintained without the consent of Parliament, the Framers vested these basic powers in Congress.

Time Limit on Appropriations for the Army

Prompted by the fear of standing armies to which Story alluded, the framers inserted the limitation that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." In 1904, the question arose whether this provision would be violated if the Government contracted to pay a royalty for use of a patent in constructing guns and other equipment where the payments are likely to continue for more than two years. Solicitor- General Hoyt ruled that such a contract would be lawful; that the appropriations limited by the Constitution "are those only which are to raise and support armies in the strict sense of the word 'support,' and that the inhibition of that clause does not extend to appropriations for the various means which an army may use in military operations, or which are deemed necessary for the common defense...." Relying on this earlier opinion, Attorney General Clark ruled in 1948 that there was "no legal objection to a request to the Congress to appropriate funds to the Air Force for the procurement of aircraft and aeronautical equipment to remain available until expended."


The constitutions adopted during the Revolutionary War by at least nine of the States sanctioned compulsory military service. Towards the end of the War of 1812, conscription of men for the army was proposed by James Monroe, then Secretary of War, but opposition developed and peace came before the bill could be enacted. In 1863, a compulsory draft law was adopted and put into operation without being challenged in the federal courts. Not so the Selective Service Act of 1917. This measure was attacked on the grounds that it tended to deprive the States of the right to "a well-regulated militia," that the only power of Congress to exact compulsory service was the power to provide for calling forth the militia for the three purposes specified in the Constitution, which did not comprehend service abroad, and finally that the compulsory draft imposed involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court rejected all of these contentions. It held that the powers of the States with respect to the militia were exercised in subordination to the paramount power of the National Government to raise and support armies, and that the power of Congress to mobilize an army was distinct from its authority to provide for calling the militia and was not qualified or in any wise limited thereby.

Before the United States entered the first World War, the Court had anticipated the objection that compulsory military service would violate the Thirteenth Amendment and had answered it in the following words: "It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the State, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers." Accordingly, in the Selective Draft Law Cases, it dismissed the objection under that amendment as a contention that was "refuted by its mere statement."

Although the Supreme Court has so far formally declined to pass on the question of the "peacetime" draft, its opinions leave no doubt of the constitutional validity of the act. In United States v. O'Brien, upholding a statute prohibiting the destruction of selective service registrants' certificate of registration, the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Warren, thought "[t]he power of Congress to classify and conscript manpower for military service is 'beyond question.'" In noting Congress' "broad constitutional power" to raise and regulate armies and navies, the Court has specifically observed that the conscription act was passed "pursuant to" the grant of authority to Congress in clauses 12- 14.

Care of the Armed Forces

Scope of the congressional and executive authority to prescribe the rules for the governance of the military is broad and subject to great deference by the judiciary. The Court recognizes "that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society," that "[t]he military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian," and that "Congress is permitted to legislate both with greater breadth and with greater flexibility when prescribing the rules by which [military society] shall be governed than it is when prescribing rules for [civilian society]."Denying that Congress or military authorities are free to disregard the Constitution when acting in this area, the Court nonetheless operates with "a healthy deference to legislative and executive judgments" with respect to military affairs, so that, while constitutional guarantees apply, "the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections."

In reliance upon this deference to congressional judgment with respect to the roles of the sexes in combat and the necessities of military mobilization, coupled with express congressional consideration of the precise questions, the Court sustained as constitutional the legislative judgment to provide only for registration of males for possible future conscription. Emphasizing the unique, separate status of the military, the necessity to indoctrinate men in obedience and discipline, the tradition of military neutrality in political affairs, and the need to protect troop morale, the Court upheld the validity of military post regulations, backed by congressional enactments, banning speeches and demonstrations of a partisan political nature and the distribution of literature without prior approval of post headquarters, with the commander authorized to keep out only those materials that would clearly endanger the loyalty, discipline, or morale of troops on the base. On the same basis, the Court rejected challenges on constitutional and statutory grounds to military regulations requiring servicemen to obtain approval from their commanders before circulating petitions on base, in the context of circulations of petitions for presentation to Congress. And the statements of a military officer urging disobedience to certain orders could be punished under provisions that would have been of questionable validity in a civilian context. Reciting the considerations previously detailed, the Court has refused to allow enlisted men and officers to sue to challenge or set aside military decisions and actions.

Congress has a plenary and exclusive power to determine the age at which a soldier or seaman shall be received, the compensation he shall be allowed, and the service to which he shall be assigned. This power may be exerted to supersede parents' control of minor sons who are needed for military service. Where the statute requiring the consent of parents for enlistment of a minor son did not permit such consent to be qualified, their attempt to impose a condition that the son carry war risk insurance for the benefit o his mother was not binding on the Government. Since the possession of government insurance payable to the person of his choice is calculated to enhance the morale of the serviceman, Congress may permit him to designate any beneficiary he desires, irrespective of state law, and may exempt the proceeds from the claims of creditors. Likewise, Congress may bar a State from taxing the tangible, personal property of a soldier, assigned for duty therein, but domiciled elsewhere. To safeguard the health and welfare of the armed forces, Congress may authorize the suppression of bordellos in the vicinity of the places where forces are stationed.

Trial and Punishment of Offenses: Servicemen, Civilian Employees, and Dependents

Under its power to make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces, Congress has set up a system of criminal law binding on all servicemen, with its own substantive laws, its own courts and procedures, and its own appeals procedure. The drafters of these congressional enactments conceived of a military justice system with application to all servicemen wherever they are, to reservists while on inactive duty training, and to certain civilians in special relationships to the military. In recent years, all these conceptions have been restricted.

Servicemen.-Although there had been extensive disagreement about the practice of court- martial trial of servicemen for nonmilitary offenses, the matter never was raised in substantial degree until the Cold War period when the United States found it essential to maintain both at home and abroad a large standing army in which great numbers of servicemen were draftees. In O'Callahan v. Parker, the Court held that court-martial jurisdiction was lacking to try servicemen charged with a crime that was not "service connected." The Court attempted to assay no definition of "service connection," but among the factors it noted were that the crime in question was committed against a civilian in peacetime in the United States off-base while the serviceman was lawfully off duty.O'Callahan was overruled in Solorio v. United States, the Court holding that "the requirements of the Constitution are not violated where . . . a court-martial is convened to try a serviceman who was a member of the armed services at the time of the offense charged." Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion for the Court insisted that O'Callahan had been based on erroneous readings of English and American history, and that "the service connection approach . . . has proved confusing and difficult for military courts to apply."

With regard to trials before courts-martial, it is not clear what provisions of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional guarantees do apply. The Fifth Amendment expressly excepts "[c]ases arising in the land and naval forces" from its grand jury provision, and there is an implication that these cases are also excepted from the Sixth Amendment.The double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment appears to be applicable. The Court of Military Appeals now holds that servicemen are entitled to all constitutional rights except those expressly or by implication inapplicable to the military. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, supplemented by the Manual for Courts-Martial, affirmatively grants due process rights roughly comparable to civilian procedures, so that many such issues are unlikely to arise absolutely necessitating constitutional analysis. However, the Code leaves intact much of the criticized traditional structure of courts-martial, including the pervasive possibilities of command influence, and the Court of Military Appeals is limited on the scope of its review, thus creating areas in which constitutional challenges are likely.

Upholding Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Court stressed the special status of military society. This difference has resulted in a military Code regulating aspects of the conduct of members of the military that in the civilian sphere would go unregulated, but on the other hand the penalties imposed range from the severe to well below the threshold of that possible in civilian life. Because of these factors, the Court, while agreeing that constitutional limitations applied to military justice, was of the view that the standards of constitutional guarantees were significantly different in the military than in civilian life. Thus, the vagueness challenge to the Articles was held to be governed by the standard applied to criminal statutes regulating economic affairs, the most lenient of vagueness standards. Neither did application of the Articles to conduct essentially composed of speech necessitate a voiding of the conviction, inasmuch as the speech was unprotected, and, even while it might reach protected speech the officer here was unable to raise that issue.

Military courts are not Article III courts but agencies established pursuant to Article I.It was established in the last century that the civil courts have no power to interfere with courts-martial and that court-martial decisions are not subject to civil court review.Until August 1, 1984, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to review by writ of certiorari the proceedings of a military commission, but Congress has now conferred appellate jurisdiction of decisions of the Court of Military Appeals. Prior to this time, civil court review of court-martial decisions was possible through habeas corpus jurisdiction, an avenue that continues to exist, but the Court severely limited the scope of such review, restricting it to the issue whether the court-martial has jurisdiction over the person tried and the offense charged. In Burns v. Wilson, however, at least seven Justices appeared to reject the traditional view and adopt the position that civil courts on habeas corpus could review claims of denials of due process rights to which the military had not given full and fair consideration. Since Burns, the Court has thrown little light on the range of issues cognizable by a federal court in such litigation and the lower federal courts have divided several ways.

Civilians and Dependents.-In recent years, the Court rejected the view of the drafters of the Code of Military Justice with regard to the persons Congress may constitutionally reach under its clause 14 powers. Thus, it held that an honorably discharged former soldier, charged with having committed murder during military service in Korea, could not be tried by court-martial but must be charged in federal court, if at all. After first leaning the other way, the Court on rehearing found lacking court-martial jurisdiction, at least in peacetime, to try civilian dependents of service personnel for capital crimes committed outside the United States. Subsequently, the Court extended its ruling to civilian dependents overseas charged with noncapital crimes and to civilian employees of the military charged with either capital or non-capital crimes.

War Legislation

War Powers in Peacetime

To some indeterminate extent, the power to wage war embraces the power to prepare for it and the power to deal with the problems of adjustment following its cessation. Justice Story emphasized that "[i]t is important also to consider, that the surest means of avoiding war is to be prepared for it in peace.... How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could in like manner prohibit the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? . . . It will be in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation." Authoritative judicial recognition of the power is found in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, in which the power of the Federal Government to construct and operate a dam and power plant, pursuant to the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916, was sustained. The Court noted that the assurance of an abundant supply of electrical energy and of nitrates, which would be produced at the site, "constitute national defense assets" and the project was justifiable under the war powers.

Perhaps the most significant example of legislation adopted pursuant to the war powers when no actual "shooting war" was in progress, with the object of strengthening national defense, was the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, establishing a body to oversee and further the research into and development of atomic energy for both military and civil purposes.

Congress has also authorized a vast amount of highway construction, pursuant to its conception of their "primary importance to the national defense," and the first extensive program of federal financial assistance in the field of education was the National Defense Education Act. The post-World War II years, though nominally peacetime, constituted the era of the Cold War and the occasions for several armed conflicts, notably in Korea and Indochina, in which the Congress enacted much legislation designed to strengthen national security, including an apparently permanent draft, authorization of extensive space exploration, authorization for wage and price controls, and continued extension of the Renegotiation Act to recapture excess profits on defense contracts. Additionally, the period saw extensive regulation of matter affecting individual rights, such as loyalty- security programs, passport controls, and limitations on members of the Communist Party and associated organizations, all of which are dealt with in other sections.

A particular province of such legislation is that designed to effect a transition from war to peace. The war power "is not limited to victories in the field.... It carries with it inherently the power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils which have arisen from its rise and progress."

This principle was given a much broader application after the First World War in Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., where the War Time Prohibition Act adopted after the signing of the Armistice was upheld as an appropriate measure for increasing war efficiency. The Court was unable to conclude that the war emergency had passed with the cessation of hostilities. But in 1924, it held that a rent control law for the District of Columbia, which had been previously upheld, had ceased to operate because the emergency which justified it had come to an end.

A similar issue was presented after World War II, and the Court held that the authority of Congress to regulate rents by virtue of the war power did not end with the presidential proclamation terminating hostilities on December 31, 1946. However, the Court cautioned that "[w]e recognize the force of the argument that the effects of war under modern conditions may be felt in the economy for years and years, and that if the war power can be used in days of peace to treat all the wounds which war inflicts on our society, it may not only swallow up all other powers of Congress but largely obliterate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as well. There are no such implications in today's decision."

In the same year, the Court sustained by only a five-to-four vote the Government's contention that the power which Congress had conferred upon the President to deport enemy aliens in times of a declared war was not exhausted when the shooting stopped."It is not for us to question," said Justice Frankfurter for the Court, "a belief by the President that enemy aliens who were justifiably deemed fit subjects for internment during active hostilites [sic] do not lose their potency for mischief during the period of confusion and conflict which is characteristic of a state of war even when the guns are silent but the peace of Peace has not come."

Delegation of Legislative Power in Wartime

The Court has insisted that in times of war as in times of peace "the respective branches of the Government keep within the power assigned to each," thus raising the issue of permissible delegation, inasmuch as during a war Congress has been prone to delegate many more powers to the President than at other times. But the number of cases actually discussing the matter is few. Two theories have been advanced at times when the delegation doctrine carried more force than it has in recent years. First, it is suggested that inasmuch as the war power is inherent in the Federal Government, and one shared by the legislative and executive branches, Congress does not really delegate legislative power when it authorizes the President to exercise the war power in a prescribed manner, a view which entirely overlooks the fact that the Constitution expressly vests the war power as a legislative power in Congress. Second, it is suggested that Congress' power to delegate in wartime is limited as in other situations but that the existence of a state of war is a factor weighing in favor of the validity of the delegation.

The first theory was fully stated by Justice Bradley in Hamilton v. Dillin, upholding a levy imposed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to an act of Congress. To the argument that the levy was a tax the fixing of which Congress could not delegate, Justice Bradley noted that the power exercised "does not belong to the same category as the power to levy and collect taxes, duties, and excises. It belongs to the war powers of the Government...."

Both theories found expression in different passages of Chief Justice Stone's opinion in Hirabayashi v. United States, upholding executive imposition of a curfew on Japanese- Americans pursuant to legislative delegation. On the one hand, he spoke to Congress and the Executive, "acting in cooperation," to impose the curfew, while on the other hand, he noted that a delegation in which Congress has determined the policy and the rule of conduct, leaving to the Executive the carrying-out of the policy, is permissible delegation.

A similar ambiguity is found in Lichter v. United States, upholding the Renegotiation Act, but taken as a whole the Court there espoused the second theory. "The power [of delegation] is especially significant in connection with constitutional war powers under which the exercise of broad discretion as to method to be employed may be essential to an effective use of its war powers by Congress. The degree to which Congress must specify its policies and standards in order that the administrative authority granted may not be an unconstitutional delegation of its own legislative power is not capable of precise definition.... Thus, while the constitutional structure and controls of our Government are our guides equally in war and in peace, they must be read with the realistic purposes of the entire instrument fully in mind." The Court then examined the exigencies of war and concluded that the delegation was valid.

Constitutional Rights in Wartime

Constitution and the Advance of the Flag

Theater of Military Operations.-Military law to the exclusion of constitutional limitations otherwise applicable is the rule in the areas in which military operations are taking place. This view was assumed by all members of the Court in Ex parte Milligan, in which the trial by a military commission of a civilian charged with disloyalty in a part of the country remote from the theater of military operations was held invalid. Although unanimous in the result, the Court divided five-to-four on the ground of decision. The point of disagreement was over which department of the Government had authority to say with finality what regions lie within the theater of military operations. The majority claimed this function for the courts and asserted that an area in which the civil courts were open and functioning does not; the minority argued that the question was for Congress' determination. The entire Court rejected the Government's contention that the President's determination was conclusive in the absence of restraining legislation.

Similarly, in Duncan v. Kahanamoku, the Court declared that the authority granted by Congress to the territorial governor of Hawaii to declare marital law under certain circumstances, which he exercised in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor, did not warrant the supplanting of civil courts with military tribunals and the trial of civilians for civilian crimes in these military tribunals at a time when no obstacle stood in the way of the operation of the civil courts, except, of course, the governor's order.

Enemy Country.-It has seemed reasonably clear that the Constitution does not follow the advancing troops into conquered territory. Persons in such territory have been held entirely beyond the reach of constitutional limitations and subject to the laws of war as interpreted and applied by the Congress and the President. "What is the law which governs an army invading an enemy's country?" the Court asked in Dow v. Johnson. "It is not the civil law of the invaded country; it is not the civil law of the conquering country; it is military law-the law of war-and its supremacy for the protection of the officers and soldiers of the army, when in service in the field in the enemy's country, is as essential to the efficiency of the army as the supremacy of the civil law at home, and, in time of peace, is essential to the preservation of liberty."

These conclusions follow not only from the usual necessities of war but as well from the Court's doctrine that the Constitution is not automatically applicable in all territories acquired by the United States, the question turning upon whether Congress has made the area "incorporated" or "unincorporated" territory. But in Reid v. Covert, Justice Black in a plurality opinion of the Court asserted that wherever the United States acts it must do so only "in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. . . . [C]onstitutional protections for the individual were designed to restrict the United States Government when it acts outside of this country, as well as at home." The case, however, involved the trial of a United States citizen abroad and the language quoted was not subscribed to by a majority of the Court; thus, it must be regarded as a questionable rejection of the previous line of cases.

Enemy Property.-In Brown v. United States, Chief Justice Marshall dealt definitively with the legal position of enemy property during wartime. He held that the mere declaration of war by Congress does not effect a confiscation of enemy property situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, but the right of Congress by further action to subject such property to confiscation was asserted in the most positive terms. As an exercise of the war power, such confiscation was held not subject to the restrictions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Since such confiscation is unrelated to the personal guilt of the owner, it is immaterial whether the property belongs to an alien, a neutral, or even to a citizen. The whole doctrine of confiscation is built upon the foundation that it is an instrument of coercion, which, by depriving an enemy of property within the reach of his power, whether within his territory or outside it, impairs his ability to resist the confiscating government while at the same time it furnishes to that government means for carrying on the war.

Prizes of War.-The power of Congress with respect to prizes is plenary; no one can have any interest in prizes captured except by permission of Congress. Nevertheless, since international law is a part of our law, the Court will administer it so long as it has not been modified by treaty or by legislative or executive action. Thus, during the Civil War, the Court found that the Confiscation Act of 1861, and the Supplementary Act of 1863, which, in authorizing the condemnation of vessels, made provision for the protection of interests of loyal citizens, merely created a municipal forfeiture and did not override or displace the law of prize. It decided, therefore, that when a vessel was liable to condemnation under either law, the Government was at liberty to proceed under the most stringent rules of international law, with the result that the citizen would be deprived of the benefit of the protective provisions of the statute. Similarly, when Cuban ports were blockaded during the Spanish-American War, the Court held, over the vigorous dissent of three of its members, that the rule of international law exempting unarmed fishing vessels from capture was applicable in the absence of any treaty provision, or other public act of the Government in relation to the subject.

The Constitution at Home in Wartime

Personal Liberty.-"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."

Ex parte Milligan, from which these words are quoted, is justly deemed one of the great cases undergirding civil liberty in this country in times of war or other great crisis, holding that except in areas in which armed hostilities have made enforcement of civil law impossible constitutional rights may not be suspended and civilians subjected to the vagaries of military justice. Yet, the words were uttered after the cessation of hostilities, and the Justices themselves recognized that with the end of the shooting there arose the greater likelihood that constitutional rights could be and would be observed and that the Court would require the observance. This pattern recurs with each critical period.

That the power of Congress to punish seditious utterances in wartime is limited by the First Amendment was assumed by the Court in a series of cases, in which it nonetheless affirmed conviction for violations of the Espionage Act of 1917. The Court also upheld a state law making it an offense for persons to advocate that citizens of the State should refuse to assist in prosecuting war against enemies of the United States. Justice Holmes matter-of-factly stated the essence of the pattern that we have mentioned. "When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." By far, the most dramatic restraint of personal liberty imposed during World War II was the detention and relocation of the Japanese residents of the Western States, including those who were native-born citizens of the United States. When various phases of this program were challenged, the Court held that in order to prevent espionage and sabotage, the authorities could restrict the movement of these persons by a curfew order, even by a regulation excluding them from defined areas,but that a citizen of Japanese ancestry whose loyalty was conceded could not be detained in a relocation camp.

A mixed pattern emerges from an examination of the Cold War period. Legislation designed to regulate and punish the organizational activities of the Communist Party and its adherents was at first upheld and then in a series of cases was practically vitiated.Against a contention that Congress' war powers had been utilized to achieve the result, the Court struck down for the second time in history a congressional statute as an infringement of the First Amendment. It voided a law making it illegal for any member of a "communist-action organization" to work in a defense facility. The majority reasoned that the law overbroadly required a person to choose between his First Amendment- protected right of association and his right to hold a job, without attempting to distinguish between those persons who constituted a threat and those who did not.

On the other hand, in New York Times Co. v. United States, a majority of the Court agreed that in appropriate circumstances the First Amendment would not preclude a prior restraint of publication of information that might result in a sufficient degree of harm to the national interest, although a different majority concurred in denying the Government's request for an injunction in that case.

Enemy Aliens.-The Alien Enemy Act of 1798 authorized the President to deport any alien or to license him to reside within the United States at any place to be designated by the President. Though critical of the measure, many persons conceded its constitutionality on the theory that Congress' power to declare war carried with it the power to treat the citizens of a foreign power against which war has been declared as enemies entitled to summary justice. A similar statute was enacted during World War I and was held valid in Ludecke v. Watkins.

During World War II, the Court unanimously upheld the power of the President to order to trial before a military tribunal German saboteurs captured within this Country. Enemy combatants, said Chief Justice Stone, who without uniforms come secretly through the lines during time of war, for the purpose of committing hostile acts, are not entitled to the status of prisoners of war but are unlawful combatants punishable by military tribunals.

Eminent Domain.-An often-cited dictum uttered shortly after the Mexican War asserted the right of an owner to compensation for property destroyed to prevent its falling into the hands of the enemy, or for that taken for public use. In United States v. Russell, decided following the Civil War, a similar conclusion was based squarely on the Fifth Amendment, although the case did not necessarily involve the point. Finally, in United States v. Pacific R. R., also a Civil War case, the Court held that the United States was not responsible for the injury or destruction of private property by military operations, but added that it did not have in mind claims for property of loyal citizens taken for the use of the national forces. "In such cases," the Court said, "it has been the practice of the government to make compensation for the property taken.... although the seizure and appropriation of private property under such circumstances by the military authorities may not be within the terms of the constitutional clauses." Meantime, however, in 1874, a committee of the House of Representatives, in an elaborate report on war claims growing out of the Civil War, had voiced the opinion that the Fifth Amendment embodies the distinction between a taking of property in the course of military operations or other urgent military necessity, and other takings for war purposes, and required compensation of owners in the latter class of cases. In determining what constitutes just compensation for property requisitioned for war purposes during World War II, the Court has assumed that the Fifth Amendment is applicable to such takings.But as to property seized and destroyed to prevent its use by the enemy, it has relied on the principle enunciated in United States v. Pacific R.R. as justification for the conclusion that owners thereof are not entitled to compensation.

Rent and Price Controls.-Even at a time when the Court was utilizing substantive due process to void economic regulations, it generally sustained such regulations in wartime. Thus, shortly following the end of World War I, it sustained, by a narrow margin, a rent control law for the District of Columbia, which not only limited permissible rent increases but also permitted existing tenants to continue in occupancy provided they paid rent and observed other stipulated conditions. Justice Holmes for the majority conceded in effect that in the absence of a war emergency the legislation might transcend constitutional limitations, but noted that "a public exigency will justify the legislature in restricting property rights in land to a certain extent without compensation."

During World War II and thereafter, economic controls were uniformly sustained. An apartment house owner who complained that he was not allowed a "fair return" on the property was dismissed with the observation that "a nation which can demand the lives of its men and women in the waging of . . . war is under no constitutional necessity of providing a system of price control . . . which will assure each landlord a 'fair return' on his property." The Court also held that rental ceilings could be established without a prior hearing when the exigencies of national security precluded the delay which would ensue.

But in another World War I case, the Court struck down a statute which penalized the making of "any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling . . . any necessaries"as repugnant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in that it was so vague and indefinite that it denied due process and failed to give adequate notice of what acts would violate it.

Clauses 15 and 16. The Militia

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

The Militia Clauses

Calling Out the Militia

The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President's call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection. The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war. The act of February 28, 1795, which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional. A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not "employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war," but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.

Regulation of the Militia

The power of Congress over the militia "being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress.... The power of the state government to legislate on the same US Constitution Annotated - The Militia prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government . . ." Under the National Defense Act of 1916, the militia, which hitherto had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the National Government. The term "militia of the United States" was defined to comprehend "all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States," between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The act reorganized the National Guard, determined its size in proportion to the population of the several States, required that all enlistments be for "three years in service and three years in reserve," limited the appointment of officers to those who "shall have successfully passed such tests as to ... physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe," and authorized the President in certain emergencies to "draft into the military service of the United States to serve therein for the period of the war unless sooner discharged, any or all members of the National Guard and National Guard Reserve," who thereupon should "stand discharged from the militia."

The militia clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army. The Court has approved the system of "dual enlistment," under which persons enlisted in state militia (National Guard) units simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, and, when called to active duty in the federal service, are relieved of their status in the state militia. Consequently, the restrictions in the first militia clause have no application to the federalized National Guard; there is no constitutional requirement that state governors hold a veto power over federal duty training conducted outside the United States or that a national emergency be declared before such training may take place.

Clause 17. District of Columbia; Federal Property

Clause 17. Congress shall have power *** To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Seat of the Government

The Convention was moved to provide for the creation of a site in which to locate the Capital of the Nation, completely removed from the control of any State, because of the humiliation suffered by the Continental Congress on June 21, 1783. Some eighty soldiers, unpaid and weary, marched on the Congress sitting in Philadelphia, physically threatened and verbally abused the members, and caused the Congress to flee the City when neither municipal nor state authorities would take action to protect the members. Thus, Madison noted that "[t]he indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it.... Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national council an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy."

The actual site was selected by compromise, Northerners accepting the Southern-favored site on the Potomac in return for Southern support for a Northern aspiration, assumption of Revolutionary War debts by the National Government. Maryland and Virginia both authorized the cession of territory and Congress accepted. Congress divided the District into two counties, Washington and Alexandria, and provided that the local laws of the two States should continue in effect. It also established a circuit court and provided for the appointment of judicial and law enforcement officials.

There seems to have been no consideration, at least none recorded, given at the Convention or in the ratifying conventions to the question of the governance of the citizens of the District. Madison in The Federalist did assume that the inhabitants "will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them, as a municipal legislature for all local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them...." Although there was some dispute about the constitutional propriety of permitting local residents a measure of "home rule," to use the recent term, almost from the first there were local elections provided for. In 1802, the District was divided into five divisions, in some of which the governing officials were elected; an elected mayor was provided in 1820. District residents elected some of those who governed them until this form of government was swept away in the aftermath of financial scandals in 1874 and replaced with a presidentially appointed Commission in 1878. The Commission lasted until 1967 when it was replaced by an appointed Mayor-Commissioner and an appointed city council. In recent years, Congress provided for a limited form of self-government in the District, with the major offices filled by election. District residents vote for President and Vice President and elect a nonvoting delegate to Congress. An effort by constitutional amendment to confer voting representation in the House and Senate failed of ratification.

Constitutionally, it appears that Congress is neither required to provide for a locally elected government nor precluded from delegating its powers over the District to an elective local government. The Court has indicated that the "exclusive" jurisdiction granted was meant to exclude any question of state power over the area and was not intended to require Congress to exercise all powers itself.

Chief Justice Marshall for the Court held in Hepburn v. Ellzey that the District of Columbia was not a State within the meaning of the diversity jurisdiction clause of Article III. This view, adhered to for nearly a century and a half, was overturned by the Court in 1949, upholding the constitutionality of a 1940 statute authorizing federal courts to take jurisdiction of non-federal controversies between residents of the District of Columbia and the citizens of a State. The decision was by a five to four division, but the five in the majority disagreed among themselves on the reasons. Three thought the statute to be an appropriate exercise of the power of Congress to legislate for the District of Columbia pursuant to this clause without regard to Article III. Two others thought that Hepburn v. Ellzey had been erroneously decided and would have overruled it. But six Justices rejected the former rationale and seven Justices rejected the latter one; since five Justices agreed, however, that the statute was constitutional, it was sustained.

It is not disputed that the District is a part of the United States and that its residents are entitled to all the guarantees of the United States Constitution including the privilege of trial by jury and of presentment by a grand jury. Legislation restrictive of liberty and property in the District must find justification in facts adequate to support like legislation by a State in the exercise of its police power.

Congress possesses over the District of Columbia the blended powers of a local and national legislature. This fact means that in some respects ordinary constitutional restrictions do not operate; thus, for example, in creating local courts of local jurisdiction in the District, Congress acts pursuant to its legislative powers under clause 17 and need not create courts that comply with Article III court requirements. And when legislating for the District Congress remains the legislature of the Union, so that it may give its enactments nationwide operation to the extent necessary to make them locally effective.

Authority Over Places Purchased


This clause has been broadly construed to cover all structures necessary for carrying on the business of the National Government. It includes post offices, a hospital and a hotel located in a national park, and locks and dams for the improvement of navigation.But it does not cover lands acquired for forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries or flood control. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that a State may convey, and the Congress may accept, either exclusive or qualified jurisdiction over property acquired within the geographical limits of a State, for purposes other than those enumerated in clause 17.

After exclusive jurisdiction over lands within a State has been ceded to the United States, Congress alone has the power to punish crimes committed within the ceded territory.Private property located thereon is not subject to taxation by the State, nor can state statutes enacted subsequent to the transfer have any operation therein. But the local laws in force at the date of cession that are protective of private rights continue in force until abrogated by Congress. Moreover, as long as there is no interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, an area subject thereto may be annexed by a municipality.

Duration of Federal Jurisdiction

A State may qualify its cession of territory by a condition that jurisdiction shall be retained by the United States only so long as the place is used for specified purposes. Such a provision operates prospectively and does not except from the grant that portion of a described tract which is then used as a railroad right of way. In 1892, the Court upheld the jurisdiction of the United States to try a person charged with murder on a military reservation, over the objection that the State had ceded jurisdiction only over such portions of the area as were used for military purposes and that the particular place on which the murder was committed was used solely for farming. The Court held that the character and purpose of the occupation having been officially established by the political department of the government, it was not open to the Court to inquire into the actual uses to which any portion of the area was temporarily put. A few years later, however, it ruled that the lease to a city, for use as a market, of a portion of an area which had been ceded to the United States for a particular purpose, suspended the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

The question arose whether the United States retains jurisdiction over a place which was ceded to it unconditionally, after it has abandoned the use of the property for governmental purposes and entered into a contract for the sale thereof to private persons. Minnesota asserted the right to tax the equitable interest of the purchaser in such land, and the Supreme Court upheld its right to do so. The majority assumed that "the Government's unrestricted transfer of property to nonfederal hands is a relinquishment of the exclusive legislative power." In separate concurring opinions, Chief Justice Stone and Justice Frankfurter reserved judgment on the question of territorial jurisdiction.

Reservation of Jurisdiction by States

For more than a century the Supreme Court kept alive, by repeated dicta, the doubt expressed by Justice Story "whether Congress are by the terms of the Constitution, at liberty to purchase lands for forts, dockyards, etc., with the consent of a State legislature, where such consent is so qualified that it will not justify the 'exclusive legislation' of Congress there. It may well be doubted if such consent be not utterly void." But when the issue was squarely presented in 1937, the Court ruled that where the United States purchases property within a State with the consent of the latter, it is valid for the State to convey, and for the United States to accept, "concurrent jurisdiction" over such land, the State reserving to itself the right to execute process "and such other jurisdiction and authority over the same as is not inconsistent with the jurisdiction ceded to the United States." The holding logically renders the second half of clause 17 superfluous. In a companion case, the Court ruled further that even if a general state statute purports to cede exclusive jurisdiction, such jurisdiction does not pass unless the United States accepts it.

Clause 18. Necessary and Proper Clause

Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power *** To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Necessary and Proper Clause

Scope of Incidental Powers

The Necessary and Proper Clause, sometimes called the "coefficient" or "elastic" clause, is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress. Chief Justice Marshall's classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland set the standard in words that reverberate to this day. "Let the end be legitimate," he wrote, "let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.

Operation of Clause

Practically every power of the National Government has been expanded in some degree by the coefficient clause. Under its authority Congress has adopted measures requisite to discharge the treaty obligations of the nation; it has organized the federal judicial system and has enacted a large body of law defining and punishing crimes. Effective control of the national economy has been made possible by the authority to regulate the internal commerce of a State to the extent necessary to protect and promote interstate commerce. The right of Congress to utilize all known and appropriate means for collecting the revenue, including the distraint of property for federal taxes, and its power to acquire property needed for the operation of the Government by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, have greatly extended the range of national power. But the widest application of the necessary and proper clause has occurred in the field of monetary and fiscal controls. Inasmuch as the various specific powers granted by Article I, § 8, do not add up to a general legislative power over such matters, the Court has relied heavily upon this clause in sustaining the comprehensive control which Congress has asserted over this subject.

Definition of Punishment and Crimes

Although the only crimes which Congress is expressly authorized to punish are piracies, felonies on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, treason and counterfeiting of the securities and current coin of the United States, its power to create, define,and punish crimes and offenses whenever necessary to effectuate the objects of the Federal Government is universally conceded. Illustrative of the offenses which have been punished under this power are the alteration of registered bonds, the bringing of counterfeit bonds into the country, conspiracy to injure prisoners in custody of a United States marshal, impersonation of a federal officer with intent to defraud, conspiracy to injure a citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, the receipt by Government officials of contributions from Government employees for political purposes, advocating the overthrow of the Government by force. Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code comprises more than 500 sections defining penal offenses against the United States.

Chartering of Banks

As an appropriate means for executing "the great powers, to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies . . . ," Congress may incorporate banks and kindred institutions. Moreover, it may confer upon them private powers, which, standing alone, have no relation to the functions of the Federal Government, if those privileges are essential to the effective operation of such corporations. Where necessary to meet the competition of state banks, Congress may authorize national banks to perform fiduciary functions, even though, apart from the competitive situation, federal instrumentalities might not be permitted to engage in such business. The Court will not undertake to assess the relative importance of the public and private functions of a financial institution Congress has seen fit to create. It sustained the act setting up the Federal Farm Loan Banks to provide funds for mortgage loans on agricultural land against the contention that the right of the Secretary of the Treasury, which he had not exercised, to use these banks as depositories of public funds, was merely a pretext for chartering those banks for private purposes.

Currency Regulations

Reinforced by the necessary and proper clause, the powers "'to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,' and 'to borrow money on the credit of the United States and to coin money and regulate the value thereon . . . ,'" have been held to give Congress virtually complete control over money and currency. A prohibitive tax on the notes of state banks, the issuance of treasury notes impressed with the quality of legal tender in payment of private debtsand the abrogation of clauses in private contracts, which called for payment in gold coin, were sustained as appropriate measures for carrying into effect some or all of the foregoing powers.

Power to Charter Corporations

In addition to the creation of banks, Congress has been held to have authority to charter a railroad corporation, or a corporation to construct an interstate bridge, as instrumentalities for promoting commerce among the States, and to create corporations to manufacture aircraft or merchant vessels as incidental to the war power.

Courts and Judicial Proceedings

Inasmuch as the Constitution "delineated only the great outlines of the judicial power . . . , leaving the details to Congress, . . . [t]he distribution and appropriate exercise of the judicial power must . . . be made by laws passed by Congress...." As a necessary and proper provision for the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article III, § 2, Congress may direct the removal from a state to a federal court of a criminal prosecution against a federal officer for acts done under color of federal law, may require the tolling of a state statute of limitations while a state cause of action that is supplemental to a federal claim is pending in federal court, and may authorize the removal before trial of civil cases arising under the laws of the United States. It may prescribe the effect to be given to judicial proceedings of the federal courts and may make all laws necessary for carrying into execution the judgments of federal courts. When a territory is admitted as a State, Congress may designate the court to which the records of the territorial courts shall be transferred and may prescribe the mode for enforcement and review of judgments rendered by those courts. In the exercise of other powers conferred by the Constitution, apart from Article III, Congress may create legislative courts and "clothe them with functions deemed essential or helpful in carrying those powers into execution."

Special Acts Concerning Claims

The Necessary and Proper Clause enables Congress to pass special laws to require other departments of the Government to prosecute or adjudicate particular claims, whether asserted by the Government itself or by private persons. In 1924, Congress adopted a Joint Resolution directing the President to cause suit to be instituted for the cancellation of certain oil leases alleged to have been obtained from the Government by fraud and to prosecute such other actions and proceedings, civil and criminal, as were warranted by the facts. This resolution also authorized the appointment of special counsel to have charge of such litigation. Private acts providing for a review of an order for compensation under the Longshoreman's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, or conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims, after it had denied recovery, to hear and determine certain claims of a contractor against the Government, have been held constitutional.

Maritime Law

Congress may implement the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction conferred upon the federal courts by revising and amending the maritime law that existed at the time the Constitution was adopted, but in so doing, it cannot go beyond the reach of that jurisdiction. This power cannot be delegated to the States; hence, acts of Congress that purported to make state workmen's compensation laws applicable to maritime cases were held unconstitutional.


License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 462 , 471 (1867).

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

240 U.S. at 12.

253 U.S. 245 (1920).

268 U.S. 501 (1925).

307 U.S. 277 (1939).

78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 113 (1871).

Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939). Collector v. Day was decided in 1871 while the country was still in the throes of Reconstruction. As noted by Chief Justice Stone in a footnote to his opinion in Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 , 414 n.4 (1938), the Court had not determined how far the Civil War Amendments had broadened the federal power at the expense of the States, but the fact that the taxing power had recently been used with destructive effect upon notes issued by the state banks, Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533 (1869), suggested the possibility of similar attacks upon the existence of the States themselves. Two years later, the Court took the logical step of holding that the federal income tax could not be imposed on income received by a municipal corporation from its investments. United States v. Railroad Co., 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 322 (1873). A far-reaching extension of private immunity was granted in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429(1895), where interest received by a private investor on state or municipal bonds was held to be exempt from federal taxation. (Though relegated to virtual desuetude, Pollock was not expressly overruled until South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)). As the apprehension of this era subsided, the doctrine of these cases was pushed into the background. It never received the same wide application as did McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), in curbing the power of the States to tax operations or instrumentalities of the Federal Government. Only once since the turn of the century has the national taxing power been further narrowed in the name of dual federalism. In 1931 the Court held that a federal excise tax was inapplicable to the manufacture and sale to a municipal corporation of equipment for its police force. Indian Motorcycle v. United States, 283 U.S. 570 (1931). Justices Stone and Brandeis dissented from this decision, and it is doubtful whether it would be followed today. Cf. Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444 (1978).

At least, if the various opinions in New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946), retain force, and they may in view of (a later) New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), a commerce clause case rather than a tax case.

25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 41 9, 444 (1827).

Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U.S. 249 , 254 (1903).

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905). See also Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360 (1934).

220 U.S. 107 (1911).

Greiner v. Lewellyn, 258 U.S. 384 (1922).

Wheeler Lumber Co. v. United States, 281 U.S. 572 (1930).

Board of Trustees v. United States, 289 U.S. 48 (1933).

Allen v. Regents, 304 U.S. 439 (1938).

Wilmette Park Dist. v. Campbell, 338 U.S. 411 (1949).

Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (1926).

Helvering v. Powers, 293 U.S. 214 (1934).

Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 U.S. 216 (1931).

Helvering v. Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 (1938), overruling Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (1932).

South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 , 517 (1988).

485 U.S. at 524.

New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 , 584 (1946) (concurring opinion of Justice Rutledge).

304 U.S. 405 (1938).

304 U.S. at 419-20.

326 U.S. 572 (1946).

326 U.S. at 584.

326 at 589-90.

326 U.S. at 596.

Wilmette Park Dist. v. Campbell, 338 U.S. 411 (1949). Cf. Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444 (1978).

485 U.S. 505 (1988).

485 U.S. at 523.

485 U.S. at 524 n.14.

See also Article I, § 9, cl. 4.

LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U.S. 377 (1921); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884).

462 U.S. 74 (1983).

462 U.S. at 85.

Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900).

Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340(1945); Riggs v. Del Drago, 317 U.S. 95 (1942); Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589 (1931); Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 , 117 (1930).

Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12 (1927).

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).

194 U.S. 486 (1904). The Court recognized that Alaska was an incorporated territory but took the position that the situation in substance was the same as if the taxes had been directly imposed by a territorial legislature for the support of the local government.

License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 462, 471 (1867).

United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953). Dissenting, Justice Frankfurter maintained that this was not a bona fide tax, but was essentially an effort to check, if not stamp out, professional gambling, an activity left to the responsibility of the States. Justices Jackson and Douglas noted partial agreement with this conclusion. See also Lewis v. United States, 348 U.S. 419 (1955).

United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450 (1921).

United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 , 293 (1935).

License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 462 , 471 (1867).

Felsenheld v. United States, 186 U.S. 126 (1902).

In re Kollock, 165 U.S. 526 (1897).

United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919). Cf. Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332 (1928).

Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937).

Without casting doubt on the ability of Congress to regulate or punish through its taxing power, the Court has overruled Kahriger, Lewis, Doremus, Sonzinsky, and similar cases on the ground that the statutory scheme compelled self-incrimination through registration. Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 (1968); Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969).

McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27 (1904).

United States v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42 , 44 (1950). See also Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 , 513 -514 (1937).

Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 , 383 (1940). See also Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 , 596 (1884).

Child Labor Tax Case (Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.), 259 U.S. 20 (1922); Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922); Helwig v. United States, 188 U.S. 605 (1903).

296 U.S. 287 (1935).

1 Stat. 24 (1789).

276 U.S. 394 (1928).

276 U.S. at 411-12.

3 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 147-149 (Library Edition, 1904).


THE FEDERALIST, Nos. 30 and 34 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) 187-193, 209-215.

Id. at No. 41, 268-78.

1 Stat. 229 (1792).

2 Stat. 357 (1806).

In an advisory opinion, which it rendered for President Monroe at his request on the power of Congress to appropriate funds for public improvements, the Court answered that such appropriations might be properly made under the war and postal powers. See Albertsworth, Advisory Functions in the Supreme Court, 23 GEO. L. J. 643, 644-647 (1935). Monroe himself ultimately adopted the broadest view of the spending power, from which, however, he carefully excluded any element of regulatory or police power. See his Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements, of May 4, 1822, 2 MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 713-752 (Richardson ed., 1906).

California v. Pacific R.R., 127 U.S. 1 (188).

255 U.S. 180 (1921).

262 U.S. 447 (1923). See also Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 (1938). These cases were limited by Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968).

160 U.S. 668 (1896).

160 U.S. at 681.

297 U.S. 1 (1936). See also Cleveland v. United States, 323 U.S. 329 (1945).

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 , 65 , 66 (1936). So settled had the issue become that 1970s attacks on federal grants-in-aid omitted any challenge on the broad level and relied on specific prohibitions, i.e., the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971).

Id. at 207 (citing Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 , 640 , 645 (1937)).

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 , 90 -91 (1976); South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203 , 207 n.2 (1987).

Sabri v. United State s, 124 S. Ct. 1941, 1946 (2004).

124 S. Ct. at 1946.

Justice Stone, speaking for himself and two other Justices, dissented on the ground that Congress was entitled when spending the national revenues for the "general welfare" to see to it that the country got its money's worth thereof, and that the condemned provisions were "necessary and proper" to that end. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 , 84 -86 (1936).

301 U.S. 548 (1937).

301 U.S. at 591.

301 U.S. at 590. See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 , 90 -92 (1976); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 , 473-475 (1980); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981).

In the Steward Machine Company case, it was a taxpayer who complained of the invasion of state sovereignty, and the Court put great emphasis on the fact that the State was a willing partner in the plan of cooperation embodied in the Social Security Act. 301 U.S. 548 , 589 , 590 (1937).

330 U.S. 127 (1947).

330 U.S. 12 7, 143 (1947). This is not to say that Congress may police the effectiveness of its spending only by means of attaching conditions to grants; Congress may also rely on criminal sanctions to penalize graft and corruption that may impede its purposes in spending programs. Sabri v. United States , 124 S. Ct. 1941 (2004).

Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 , 474 (1980) (Chief Justice Burger announcing judgment of the Court). The Chief Justice cited five cases to document the assertion: California Bankers Ass'n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127 (1947); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937); and Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 , 207 -12 (1987).

483 U.S. at 207 (1987). See discussion under Scope of the Power , supra.

Barnes v. Gorman, 122 S. Ct. 2097, 2100 (2002) (holding that neither the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 nor section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 subjected states to punitive damages in private actions).

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. at 207 (1987). The requirement appeared in Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 , 17 (1981). See also Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 , 246 -47 (1985) (Rehabilitation Act does not clearly signal states that participation in programs funded by Act constitutes waiver of immunity from suit in federal court); Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 122 S. Ct. 2268 (2002) (no private right of action was created by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act).

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 , 207 -208 (1987). See Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 , 590 (1937); Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 , 295 (1958).

The relationship in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 , 208 -09 (1987), in which Congress conditioned access to certain highway funds on establishing a 21- years-of-age drinking qualification was that the purpose of both funds and condition was safe interstate travel. The federal interest in Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127 , 143 (1947), as we have noted, was assuring proper administration of federal highway funds.

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 , 210 -11 (1987).

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 , 589 -590 (1937); South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 , 211 -212 (1987).

See North Carolina ex rel. Morrow v. Califano, 445 F. Supp. 532 (E.D.N.C. 1977) (three-judge court), aff'd 435 U.S. 962 (1978).

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 , 210 (1987) (referring to the Tenth Amendment: "the 'independent constitutional bar' limitation on the spending power is not . . . a prohibition on the indirect achievement of objectives which Congress is not empowered to achieve directly").

Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773 (1983); Bennett v. New Jersey, 470 U.S. 632 (1985); Bennett v. Kentucky Dep't of Education, 470 U.S. 656 (1985).

E.g., King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968); Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (1970); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974); Miller v. Youakim, 440 U.S. 125 (1979). Suits may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980), although in some instances the statutory conferral of rights may be too imprecise or vague for judicial enforcement. Compare Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (1992), with Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Auth., 479 U.S. 418 (1987).

E.g., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681; Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

Here the principal constraint is the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 exceeds congressional power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and violates the Eleventh Amendment, by subjecting states to suits brought by state employees in federal courts to collect money damages).

Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308 (1937).

301 U.S. 619 (1937).

United States v. Realty Co., 163 U.S. 427 (1896); Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 , 9 (1944).

Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308 (1937).

6 U.S. (2 Cr.) 358 (1805).

6 U.S. at 396.

2 M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 144, 308-309 (rev. ed. 1937).

Id. at 310.

Knox v. Lee (Legal Tender Cases), 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1871), overruling Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 603 (1870).

Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 , 351 (1935). See also Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934).


That is, "cum merce (with merchandise)."

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824).

Act of February 18, 1793, 1 Stat. 305, entitled "An Act for enrolling and licensing ships or vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same."

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 , 189 (1824).

22 U.S. at 190-94.

22 U.S. at 193.

As we will see, however, in many later formulations the crossing of state lines is no longer the sine qua non; wholly intrastate transactions with substantial effects on interstate commerce may suffice.

E.g., United States v. Simpson, 252 U.S. 465 (1920); Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917).

"Not only, then, may transactions be commerce though non-commercial; they may be commerce though illegal and sporadic, and though they do not utilize common carriers or concern the flow of anything more tangible than electrons and information." United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 , 549 -550 (1944).

Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888); Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172 (1923); United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895); and see Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238(1936).

Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869); and see the cases to this effect cited in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 , 543 -545, 567-568, 578 (1944).

Federal Baseball League v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922). When called on to reconsider its decision, the Court declined, noting that Congress had not seen fit to bring the business under the antitrust laws by legislation having prospective effect and that the business had developed under the understanding that it was not subject to these laws, a reversal of which would have retroactive effect. Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356 (1953). In Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), the Court recognized these decisions as aberrations, but it thought the doctrine entitled to the benefits of stare decisis inasmuch as Congress was free to change it at any time. The same considerations not being present, the Court has held that businesses conducted on a multistate basis but built around local exhibitions, are in commerce and subject to, inter alia, the antitrust laws, in the instance of professional football, Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U. S. 445 (1957), professional boxing, United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236 (1955), and legitimate theatrical productions. United States v. Shubert, 348 U.S. 222 (1955).

Blumenstock Bros. v. Curtis Pub. Co., 252 U.S. 436 (1920).

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270(1900). See also Diamond Glue Co. v. United States Glue Co., 187 U.S. 611 (1903); Browning v. City of Waycross, 233 U.S. 16 (1914); General Railway Signal Co. v. Virginia, 246 U.S. 500 (1918). But see York Manufacturing Co. v. Colley, 247 U.S. 21 (1918).

Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945).

American Medical Ass'n v. United States, 317 U.S. 519 (1943). Cf. United States v. Oregon Medical Society, 343 U.S. 326 (1952).

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

"It has been truly said, that commerce, as the word is used in the constitution, is a unit, every part of which is indicated by the term." Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 , 194 (1824). And see id. at 195-196.

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937).

Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 (1940). And see Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, 452 U. S. 264, 275- 283 (1981). See also Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38 (1939) (agricultural production).

Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905); Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495(1922); Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1 (1923).

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 194 , 195 (1824).

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837); License Cases, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 504 (1847); Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283 (1849); Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 (1879); Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879); Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888); Illinois Central R.R. v. McKendree, 203 U.S. 514 (1906); Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138 (1909); Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918); Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172 (1923).

Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905); Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495 (1922); Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1 (1923).

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937).

NLRB v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601 (1939); Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517 (1942); United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110(1942); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Co., 371 U.S. 224 (1963); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964); Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968); McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans, 444 U. S. 232 , 241 -243 (1980); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264 (1981).

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941); Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971); Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858 (1985); Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991).

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 , 196 (1824). Commerce "among the several States" does not comprise commerce of the District of Columbia nor of the territories of the United States. Congress' power over their commerce is an incident of its general power over them. Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U.S. 141 (1889); Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U.S. 427 (1932); In re Bryant, 4 Fed. Cas. 514 (No. 2067) (D. Oreg. 1865). Transportation between two points in the same State, when a part of the route is a loop outside the State, is interstate commerce. Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 187 U.S. 617 (1903); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Speight, 254 U.S. 17 (1920). But such a deviation cannot be solely for the purpose of evading a tax or regulation in order to be exempt from the State's reach. Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, 334 U.S. 653 , 660 (1948); Eichholz v. Public Service Comm'n, 306 U.S. 268 , 274 (1939). Red cap services performed at a transfer point within the State of departure but in conjunction with an interstate trip are reachable. New York, N.H. & H. R.R. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128 (1953).

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 196 -197 (1824).

Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432 , 436 -437 (1925). United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 , 114 (1941).

E.g., Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917) (transportation of female across state line for noncommercial sexual purposes); Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946) (transportation of plural wives across state lines by Mormons); United States v. Simpson, 252 U.S. 465 (1920) (transportation of five quarts of whiskey across state line for personal consumption).

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964); Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969).

E.g., Reid v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137 (1902) (transportation of diseased livestock across state line); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971) (prohibition of all loansharking).

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 , 195 (1824).

E.g., Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914) (necessary for ICC to regulate rates of an intrastate train in order to effectuate its rate setting for a competing interstate train); Wisconsin R.R. Comm'n v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.R., 257 U.S. 563 (1922) (same); Southern Ry. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911) (upholding requirement of same safety equipment on intrastate as interstate trains). See also Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110 (1942).

E.g., United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895); Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918). Of course, there existed much of this time a parallel doctrine under which federal power was not so limited. E.g., Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States (The Shreveport Rate Case), 234 U.S. 342 (1914).

E.g., California v. United States, 320 U.S. 577 (1944); California v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 553 (1957).

For example, federal regulation of the wages and hours of certain state and local governmental employees has alternatively been upheld and invalidated. See Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968), overruled in National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), overruled in Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985).

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). See also Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). For elaboration, see the discussions under the supremacy clause and under the Tenth Amendment.

250 U.S. 199 (1919).

250 U.S. at 203.

E.g., Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913) (transportation of women for purposes of prostitution); Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124 (1936) (kidnapping); Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432 (1925) (stolen autos). For example, in Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977), the Court upheld a conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon upon a mere showing that the gun had sometime previously traveled in interstate commerce, and Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976), upheld a conviction for receipt of a firearm on the same showing. The Court does require Congress in these cases to speak plainly in order to reach such activity, inasmuch as historic state police powers are involved. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971).

Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames), 188 U.S. 321 , 373 -374 (1903).

Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames), 188 U.S. 321 , 373 -374 (1903).

Brolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216 , 222 (1915). The most recent dicta to this effect appears in Japan Line v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434 , 448 -451 (1979), a "dormant" commerce clause case involving state taxation with an impact on foreign commerce. In context, the distinction seems unexceptionable, but the language extends beyond context.

License Cases, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 504 , 578 (1847).

Pittsburgh & Southern Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U.S. 577 , 587 (1895).

United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 , 147 -148 (1938), they relate, at all times and under all circumstances. As they were intrusted to the general government for the good of the nation, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Congress to see to it that intercourse among the States and the transmission of intelligence are not obstructed or unnecessarily encumbered by State legislation."

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 217 , 221 (1824).

96 U.S. 1 (1878). See also Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 (1882).

96 U.S. at 9. "Commerce embraces appliances necessarily employed in carrying on transportation by land and water." Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 560 , 568 (1873).

Act of March 28, 1927, 45 Stat. 373, superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, 47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.

"No question is presented as to the power of the Congress, in its regulation of interstate commerce, to regulate radio communication." Chief Justice Hughes speaking for the Court in Federal Radio Comm'n v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266 , 279 (1933). See also Fisher's Blend Station v. Tax Comm'n, 297 U. S. 650, 654-655 (1936).

54 U.S. (13 How.) 518 (1852).

Ch. 111, §6, 10 Stat 112 (1852).

Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421 , 430 (1856). "It is Congress, and not the Judicial Department, to which the Constitution has given the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. The courts can never take the initiative on this subject." Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 , 701 (1883). See also Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946); Robertson v. California, 328 U.S. 440 (1946).

But see In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895), in which the Court held that in the absence of legislative authorization the Executive had power to seek and federal courts to grant injunctive relief to remove obstructions to interstate commerce and the free flow of the mail.

70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 713 (1866).

70 U.S. at 724-25.

Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U.S. 364 (1907). See also Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U.S. 177 (1910); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929). The United States may seek injunctive or declaratory relief requiring the removal of obstructions to commerce by those negligently responsible for them or it may itself remove the obstructions and proceed against the responsible party for costs. United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 362 U.S. 482 (1960); Wyandotte Transportation Co. v. United States, 389 U.S. 191 (1967). Congress' power in this area is newly demonstrated by legislation aimed at pollution and environmental degradation. In confirming the title of the States to certain waters under the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29 (1953), 43 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., Congress was careful to retain authority over the waters for purposes of commerce, navigation, and the like. United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 , 127 (1967).

Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S. 269 (1897). See also Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 470 (1882); United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690 (1899); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U.S. 53 (1913); Seattle v. Oregon & W.R.R., 255 U.S. 56 , 63 (1921); Economy Light Co. v. United States, 256 U.S. 113 (1921); United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U.S. 411 , 419 (1926); Ford & Son v. Little Falls Co., 280 U.S. 369 (1930); United States v. Commodore Park, 324 U.S. 386 (1945); United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U.S. 222 (1956); United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967).

United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (1917).

United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R.R., 312 U.S. 592 , 597 (1941); United States v. Willow River Co., 324 U.S. 499 (1945).

United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690 (1899).

77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 557 (1871).

77 U.S. at 565.

77 U.S. at 566. "The regulation of commerce implies as much control, as far-reaching power, over an artificial as over a natural highway." Justice Brewer for the Court in Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312 , 342 (1893).

Congress had the right to confer upon the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to regulate interstate ferry rates, N.Y. Central R.R. v. Hudson County, 227 U.S. 248 (1913), and to authorize the Commission to govern the towing of vessels between points in the same State but partly through waters of an adjoining State. Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 634 (1944). Congress' power over navigation extends to persons furnishing wharfage, dock, warehouse, and other terminal facilities to a common carrier by water. Hence an order of the United States Maritime Commission banning certain allegedly "unreasonable practices" by terminals in the Port of San Francisco, and prescribing schedules of maximum free time periods and of minimum charges was constitutional. California v. United States, 320 U.S. 577 (1944). The same power also comprises regulation of the registry enrollment, license, and nationality of ships and vessels, the method of recording bills of sale and mortgages thereon, the rights and duties of seamen, the limitations of the responsibility of shipowners for the negligence and misconduct of their captains and crews, and many other things of a character truly maritime. See The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 558 , 577 (1875); Providence & N.Y. SS. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578, 589 (1883); The Hamilton, 207 U.S. 398 (1907); O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Co., 318 U.S. 36 (1943).

Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (1894).

Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U.S. 58 , 80 (1898).

229 U.S. 53 (1913).

229 U.S. at 73, citing Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 142 U.S. 254 (1891).

283 U.S. 423 (1931).

311 U.S. 377 (1940).

283 U.S. at 455-456. See also United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U.S. 222 , 224 (1956).

311 U.S. at 407, 409-10.

311 U.S. at 426.

Oklahoma v. Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. 508 , 523 -33 passim (1941).

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936).

Cf. Indiana v. United States, 148 U.S. 148 (1893).

12 Stat. 489 (1862); 13 Stat. 356 (1864); 14 Stat. 79 (1866).

The result then as well as now might have followed from Congress' power of spending, independently of the commerce clause, as well as from its war and postal powers, which were also invoked by the Court in this connection.

Thomson v. Union Pacific R.R., 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 579(1870); California v. Pacific R.R. Co. (Pacific Ry. Cases), 127 U.S. 1 (1888); Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry. Co., 135 U.S. 641 (1890); Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894).

14 Stat. 66 (1866).

14 Stat. 221 (1866).

17 Stat. 353 (1873).

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877); Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U.S. 155 (1877); Peik v. Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co., 94 U.S. 164 (1877); Pickard v. Pullman Southern Car Co., 117 U.S. 34 (1886).

Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886). A variety of state regulations have been struck down on the burdening-of-commerce rationale. E.g., Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U.S. 761 (1945) (train length); Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605 (1926) (locomotive accessories); Pennsylvania R.R. v. Public Service Comm'n, 250 U. S. 566 (1919). But the Court has largely exempted regulations with a safety purpose, even a questionable one. Brotherhood of Firemen v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 393 U.S. 129 (1968).

24 Stat. 379 (1887).

154 U.S. 447 (1894).

ICC v. Alabama Midland Ry., 168 U.S. 144 (1897); Cincinnati, N.O. & Texas Pacific Ry. v. ICC, 162 U.S. 184 (1896).

34 Stat. 584 (1906).

36 Stat. 539 (1910).

These regulatory powers are now vested, of course, in the Federal Communications Commission.

49 Stat. 543 (1935).

41 Stat. 474 (1920).

54 Stat. 898 (1940), U.S.C. § 1 et seq. The two acts were "intended . . . to provide a completely integrated interstate regulatory system over motor, railroad, and water carriers." United States v. Pennsylvania R.R., 323 U.S. 612 , 618 -619 (1945). The ICC's powers include authority to determine the reasonableness of a joint through international rate covering transportation in the United States and abroad and to order the domestic carriers to pay reparations in the amount by which the rate is unreasonable. Canada Packers v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 385 U.S. 182 (1966), and cases cited.

Disputes between the ICC and other Government agencies over mergers have occupied a good deal of the Court's time. Cf. United States v. ICC, 396 U. S. 491 (1970). See also County of Marin v. United States, 356 U.S. 412 (1958); McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 67 (1944); Penn-Central Merger & N & W Inclusion Cases, 389 U.S. 486 (1968).

Among the various provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act which have been upheld are: a section penalizing shippers for obtaining transportation at less than published rates, Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56 (1908); a section construed as prohibiting the hauling of commodities in which the carrier had at the time of haul a proprietary interest, United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366 (1909); a section abrogating life passes, Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467 (1911); a section authorizing the ICC to regulate the entire bookkeeping system of interstate carriers, including intrastate accounts, ICC v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U.S. 194 (1912); a clause affecting the charging of rates different for long and short hauls. Intermountain Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 476 (1914).

Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 , 351 -352 (1914). See also, American Express Co. v. Caldwell, 244 U.S. 617 (1917); Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Tax Comm'n, 297 U.S. 403 (1936); Weiss v. United States, 308 U. S. 321 (1939); Bethlehem Steel Co. v. State Board, 330 U.S. 767 (1947); United States v. Walsh, 331 U.S. 432 (1947).

Wisconsin R.R. Comm'n v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 257 U.S. 563 (1922). Cf. Colorado v. United States, 271 U.S. 153 (1926), upholding an ICC order directing abandonment of an intrastate branch of an interstate railroad. But see North Carolina v. United States, 325 U.S. 507 (1945), setting aside an ICC disallowance of intrastate rates set by a state commission as unsupported by the evidence and findings.

27 Stat. 531, 45 U.S.C. §§ 1-7.

32 Stat. 943, 45 U.S.C. §§ 8-10.

Southern Ry. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911). See also Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33 (1916); United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175 (1936); United States v. Seaboard Air Line R.R., 361 U.S. 78 (1959).

34 Stat. 1415, 45 U.S.C. §§ 61-64.

Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. ICC, 221 U.S. 612 (1911).

34 Stat. 232, held unconstitutional in part in the Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U.S. 463 (1908).

35 Stat. 65, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60.

The Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1 (1912). For a longer period, a Court majority reviewed a surprising large number of FELA cases, almost uniformly expanding the scope of recovery under the statute. Cf. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 352 U.S. 500 (1957). This practice was criticized both within and without the Court, cf. Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 U. S. 521 , 524 (1957) (Justice Frankfurter dissenting); Hart, Foreword: The Time Chart of the Justices, 73 HARV. L. REV. 84, 96-98 (1959), and has been discontinued.

See discussion under Railroad Retirement Act and National Labor Relations Act , infra.

The Pipe Line Cases, 234 U.S. 548 (1914). See also State Comm'n v. Wichita Gas Co., 290 U.S. 561 (1934); Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 265 (1921); United Fuel Gas Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 277 (1921); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923); Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Gas Co., 265 U.S. 298 (1924).

Public Utilities Comm'n v. Attleboro Co., 273 U.S. 83 (1927). See also Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost, 286 U.S. 165 (1932); Pennsylvania Power Co. v. FPC, 343 U.S. 414 (1952).

49 Stat. 863, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a-825u.

52 Stat. 821, 15 U.S.C. §§ 717-717w.

FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. 575 (1942).

315 U.S. at 582. Sales to distributors by a wholesaler of natural gas delivered to it from out-of-state sources are subject to FPC jurisdiction.

48 Stat. 1064, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Cf. United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968), on the regulation of community antenna television systems (CATV).

52 Stat. 973, as amended. The CAB has now been abolished and its functions are exercised by the Federal Aviation Administration, 49 U.S.C. § 106, as part of the Department of Transportation.

26 Stat. 209 (1890); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7.

156 U.S. 1 (1895).

156 U.S. at 13.

156 U.S. at 13-16.

156 U.S. at 17. The doctrine of the case boiled down to the proposition that commerce was transportation only, a doctrine Justice Harlan undertook to refute in his notable dissenting opinion. "Interstate commerce does not, therefore, consist in transportation simply. It includes the purchase and sale of articles that are intended to be transported from one State to another-every species of commercial intercourse among the States and with foreign nations" Id. at 22. "Any combination, therefore, that disturbs or unreasonably obstructs freedom in buying and selling articles manufactured to be sold to persons in other States or to be carried to other States-a freedom that cannot exist if the right to buy and sell is fettered by unlawful restraints that crush out competition -affects, not incidentally, but directly, the people of all the States; and the remedy for such an evil is found only in the exercise of powers confided to a government which, this court has said, was the government of all, exercising powers delegated by all, representing all, acting for all. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405," Id. at 33.

175 U.S. 211 (1899).

196 U.S. 375 (1905). The Sherman Act was applied to break up combinations of interstate carriers in United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897); United States v. Joint-Traffic Ass'n, 171 U.S. 505 (1898); and Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904).

Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 , 396 (1905).

196 U.S. at 398-99.

196 U.S. at 399-401.

196 U.S. at 400.

Loewe v. Lawlor (The Danbury Hatters Case), 208 U.S. 274 (1908); Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921); Coronado Co. v. United Mine Workers, 268 U.S. 295 (1925); United States v. Bruins, 272 U.S. 549 (1926); Bedford Co. v. Stone Cutters Ass'n, 274 U.S. 37 (1927); Local 167 v. United States, 291 U.S. 293 (1934); Allen Bradley Co. v. Union, 325 U.S. 797 (1945); United States v. Employing Plasterers Ass'n, 347 U.S. 186 (1954); United States v. Green, 350 U.S. 415 (1956); Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587 (1961).

42 Stat. 159, 7 U.S.C. §§ 171-183, 191-195, 201-203.

42 Stat. 998 (1922), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-9, 10a-17.

258 U.S. 495 (1922).

258 U.S. at 514.

258 U.S. at 515-16. See also Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co., 258 U.S. 50 (1922); Minnesota v. Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 (1933).

262 U.S. 1 (1923).

262 U.S. at 35.

262 U.S. at 40.

262 U.S. at 37, quoting Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495 , 521 (1922).

48 Stat. 881, 15 U.S.C. § 77b et seq.

49 Stat. 803, 15 U.S.C. §§ 79-79z-6.

Electric Bond Co. v. SEC, 303 U.S. 419 (1938); North American Co. v. SEC, 327 U.S. 686 (1946); American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90 (1946).

Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, 288 U.S. 344 , 372 (1933).

48 Stat. 195.

295 U.S. 495 (1935).

295 U.S. at 548. See also id. at 546.

In United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689 (1948), the Court interpreted the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 as applying to the sale by a retailer of drugs purchased from his wholesaler within the State nine months after their interstate shipment had been completed. The Court, speaking by Justice Black, cited United States v. Walsh, 331 U.S. 432 (1947); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U. S. 110 (1942); United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941). Justice Frankfurter dissented on the basis of FTC v. Bunte Bros., 312 U.S. 349 (1941). It is apparent that the Schechter case has been thoroughly repudiated so far as the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" effects is concerned. Cf. Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971). See also McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115 (1913), which preceded the Schechter decision by more than two decades.

48 Stat. 31 (1933).

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 , 63 -64, 68 (1936).

49 Stat. 991 (1935).

Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).

298 U.S. at 308-09.

48 Stat. 1283 (1934).

295 U.S. 330 (1935).

295 U.S. at 374.

295 U.S. at 379, 384.

326 U.S. 446 (1946). Indeed, in a case decided in June, 1948, Justice Rutledge, speaking for a majority of the Court, listed the Alton case as one "foredoomed to reversal," though the formal reversal has never taken place. See Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219 , 230 (1948). Cf. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 , 19 (1976).

301 U.S. 1 (1937). A major political event had intervened between this decision and those described in the preceding pages. President Roosevelt, angered at the Court's invalidation of much of his depression program, proposed a "reorganization" of the Court by which he would have been enabled to name one new Justice for each Justice on the Court who was more than 70 years old, in the name of "judicial efficiency." The plan was defeated in the Senate, in part, perhaps, because in such cases as Jones & Laughlin a Court majority began to demonstrate sufficient "judicial efficiency." See Leuchtenberg, The Origins of Franklin D. Roosevelt's 'Court-Packing' Plan, 1966 SUP. CT. REV. 347 (P. Kurland ed.); Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone and FDR's Court Plan, 61 YALE L. J. 791 (1952); 2 M. PUSEY, CHARLES EVANS HUGHES 759-765 (1951).

49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

The NLRA was enacted not only against the backdrop of depression, although obviously it went far beyond being a mere antidepression measure, but Congress could as well look to its experience in railway labor legislation. In 1898, Congress passed the Erdman Act, 30 Stat. 424, which attempted to influence the unionization of railroad workers and facilitate negotiations with employers through mediation. The statute fell largely into disuse because the railroads refused to mediate. Additionally, in Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908), the Court struck down a section of the law outlawing "yellow-dog contracts," by which employers exacted promises of workers to quit or not to join unions as a condition of employment. The Court held the section not to be a regulation of commerce, there being no connection between an employee's membership in a union and the carrying on of interstate commerce. Cf. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915).

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 , 38 , 41-42 (1937).

NLRB v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., 301 U.S. 49 (1937); NLRB v. Friedman- Harry Marks Clothing Co., 301 U.S. 58 (1937).

NLRB v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601 , 606 (1939).

Howell Chevrolet Co. v. NLRB, 346 U.S. 482 (1953).

Journeymen Plumbers' Union v. County of Door, 359 U.S. 354 (1959).

NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Co., 371 U.S. 224 (1963).

371 U.S. at 226. See also Guss v. Utah Labor Board, 353 U.S. 1 , 3 (1957); NLRB v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601 , 607 (1939).

NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Co., 371 U.S. 224 , 225 n.2 (1963); Liner v. Jafco, 375 U.S. 301 , 303 n. 2 (1964).

52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 63 Stat. 910 (1949). The 1949 amendment substituted the phrase "in any process or occupation directly essential to the production thereof in any State" for the original phrase "in any process or occupation necessary to the production thereof in any State." In Mitchell v. H. . Zachry Co., 362 U.S. 310 , 317 (1960), the Court noted that the change "manifests the view of Congress that on occasion courts . . . had found activities to be covered, which . . . [Congress now] deemed too remote from commerce or too incidental to it." The 1961 amendments to the Act, 75 Stat. 65, departed from previous practices of extending coverage to employees individually connected to interstate commerce to cover all employees of any "enterprise" engaged in commerce or production of commerce; thus, there was an expansion of employees covered but not, of course, of employers, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r), 203(s), 206(a), 207(a).

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 , 115 (1941).

312 U.S. at 113, 114, 118.

312 U.S. at 123-24.

E.g., Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517 (1942) (operating and maintenance employees of building, part of which was rented to business producing goods for interstate commerce); Walton v. Southern Package Corp., 320 U.S. 540 (1944) (night watchman in a plant the substantial portion of the production of which was shipped in interstate commerce); Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944) (employees on stand-by auxiliary fire-fighting service of an employer engaged in interstate commerce); Borden Co. v. Borella, 325 U.S. 679 (1945) (maintenance employees in building housing company's central offices where management was located though the production of interstate commerce was elsewhere); Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., 327 U.S. 173 (1946) (employees of a window-cleaning company the principal business of which was performed on windows of industrial plants producing goods for interstate commerce); Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates, 358 U.S. 207 (1959) (nonprofessional employees of architectural firm working on plans for construction of air bases, bus terminals, and radio facilities).

Cf. Mitchell v. H. B. Zachry Co., 362 U.S. 310 , 317 (1960).

75 Stat. 65.

80 Stat. 830.

29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r), 203(s).

392 U.S. 183 (1968).

Another aspect of this case was overruled in National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), which itself was overruled in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985).

50 Stat. 246, 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.

315 U.S. 110 (1942). The Court had previously upheld other legislation that regulated agricultural production through limitations on sales in or affecting interstate commerce. Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939); Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38 (1939).

315 U.S. at 118-19.

317 U.S. 111 (1942).

52 Stat. 31, 7 U.S.C. §§ 612c, 1281-1282 et seq.

317 U.S. at 128-29.

317 U.S. at 120-24. In United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 U.S. 533 (1939), the Court sustained an order under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 246, regulating the price of milk in certain instances. Said Justice Reed for the majority of the Court: "The challenge is to the regulation 'of the price to be paid upon the sale by a dairy farmer who delivers his milk to some country plant.' It is urged that the sale, a local transaction, is fully completed before any interstate commerce begins and that the attempt to fix the price or other elements of that incident violates the Tenth Amendment. But where commodities are bought for use beyond State lines, the sale is a part of interstate commerce. We have likewise held that where sales for interstate transportation were commingled with intrastate transactions, the existence of the local activity did not interfere with the federal power to regulate inspection of the whole. Activities conducted within State lines do not by this fact alone escape the sweep of the Commerce Clause. Interstate commerce may be dependent upon them. Power to establish quotas for interstate marketing gives power to name quotas for that which is to be left within the State of production. Where local and foreign milk alike are drawn into a general plan for protecting the interstate commerce in the commodity from the interferences, burdens and obstructions, arising from excessive surplus and the social and sanitary evils of low values, the power of the Congress extends also to the local sales." Id. at 568-69.

United States v. The William, 28 Fed. Cas. 614, 620-623 (No. 16,700) (D. Mass. 1808). See also Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 , 191(1824); United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 560 (1850). 289 U.S. 48 (1933).

289 U.S. at 57, 58.

Ch. 270, § 28, 5 Stat. 566.

9 Stat. 237 (1848).

24 Stat. 409.

35 Stat. 614; 38 Stat. 275.

29 Stat. 605.

192 U.S. 470 (1904).

223 U.S. 166 (1912); cf. United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947).

239 U.S. 325 (1915).

239 U.S. at 329.

236 U.S. 216 (1915).


Groves v. Slaughter, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 449 , 488 -489 (1841).

312 U.S. 100 (1941).

The judicial history of the argument may be examined in the majority and dissenting opinions in Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), a five-to- four decision, in which the majority held Congress not to be empowered to ban from the channels of interstate commerce goods made with child labor, since Congress' power was to prescribe the rule by which commerce was to be carried on and not to prohibit it, except with regard to those things the character of which-diseased cattle, lottery tickets-was inherently evil. With the majority opinion, compare Justice Stone's unanimous opinion in United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 , 112 -124 (1941), overruling Hammer v. Dagenhart. See also Corwin, The Power of Congress to Prohibit Commerce, 3 SELECTED ESSAYS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 103 (1938).

23 Stat. 31.

32 Stat. 791.

33 Stat. 1264.

33 Stat. 1269.

37 Stat. 315.

39 Stat. 1165.

Illinois Central R.R. v. McKendree, 203 U.S. 514 (1906). See also United States v. DeWitt, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 41 (1870).

Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames), 188 U.S. 321 (1903).

28 Stat. 963.

143 U.S. 110 (1892).

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 227 (1824).

114 U.S. 62 2, 630 (1885).

Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 , 322 (1913).

United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420 , 425 (1919).

267 U.S. 432 (1925).

41 Stat. 324 (1919), 18 U.S.C., §§ 2311-2313.

267 U.S. at 436-39. See also Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. I.C.R. Co., 299 U.S. 334 (1937).

29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941).

247 U.S. 251 (1918).

312 U.S. at 116-17.

E.g., Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432 , 436 -437 (1925); United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 , 114 (1941). See Cushman, The National Police Power Under the Commerce Clause, 3 SELECTED ESSAYS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 62 (1938).

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 , 158 (1992).

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 , 558 -59 (1995) (citations omitted). Illustrative of the power to legislate to protect the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce is Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129 , 147 (2003), in which the Court upheld a prohibition on the use in state or federal court proceedings of highway data required to be collected by states on the basis that "Congress could reasonably believe that adopting a measure eliminating an unforeseen side effect of the information-gathering requirement . . . would result in more diligent efforts [by states] to collect the relevant information."

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964); Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969).

Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 298 , 300-302 (1964); Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 , 305 (1969).

Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977); Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976). However, because such laws reach far into the traditional police powers of the States, the Court insists Congress clearly speak to its intent to cover such local activities. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971). See also Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808 (1971); United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973). A similar tenet of construction has appeared in the Court's recent treatment of federal prosecutions of state officers for official corruption under criminal laws of general applicability. E.g., McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). Congress has overturned the latter case. 102 Stat. 4508, § 7603, 18 U.S. C. § 1346.

332 U.S. 689 (1948).

332 U.S. at 698-99.

317 U.S. 111 (1942).

Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542 , 547 (1975).

See Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 , 188 -193 (1968).

Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314 , 323 -324 (1981).

452 U.S. at 324.

Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264 , 281 (1981) (quoting United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110 , 119 (1942)).

452 U.S. at 276, 277. The scope of review is restated in Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1 , 17 (1990). Then-Justice Rehnquist, concurring in the two Hodel cases, objected that the Court was making it appear that no constitutional limits existed under the commerce clause, whereas in fact it was necessary that a regulated activity must have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, not just some effect. He thought it a close case that the statutory provisions here met those tests. 452 U.S. at 307-313.

402 U.S. 146 (1971).

Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858 , 862 (1985). In a later case the Court avoided the constitutional issue by holding the statute inapplicable to the arson of an owner-occupied private residence.

Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991). See also Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000)(an owner-occupied building is not "used" in interstate commerce within the meaning of the federal arson statute).

500 U.S. at 330-32. The decision was 5-to-4, with the dissenters of the view that, although Congress could reach the activity, it had not done so.

Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The Court was divided 5-to- 4, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, with dissents by Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg.

18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). Congress subsequently amended the section to make the offense jurisdictionally to turn on possession of "a firearm that has moved inor that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce." Pub. L. 104- 208, 110 Stat. 3009-370.

514 U.S. at 556-57, 559.

514 U.S. at 558-59. For a recent example of regulation of persons or things in interstate commerce, see Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (information about motor vehicles and owners, regulated pursuant to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, and sold by states and others, is an article of commerce)

514 U.S. at 559.

514 U.S. at 559-61.

514 U.S. at 561.

514 U.S. at 563-68.

514 U.S. at 564.

"Not every epochal case has come in epochal trappings." 514 U.S. at 615 (Justice Souter dissenting) (wondering whether the case is only a misapplication of established standards or is a veering in a new direction).

529 U.S. 598 (2000). Once again, the Justices were split 5-4, with Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion of the Court being joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, and with Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissenting.

For an expansive interpretation in the area of economic regulation, decided during the same Term as Lopez, see Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995). Lopez did not "purport to announce a new rule governing Congress' Commerce Clause power over concededly economic activity." Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52 , 58 (2003).

529 U.S. at 613.

Dissenting Justice Souter pointed to a "mountain of data" assembled by Congress to show the effects of domestic violence on interstate commerce. 529 U.S. at 628-30. The Court has evidenced a similar willingness to look behind congressional findings purporting to justify exercise of enforcement power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See discussion under "enforcement," infra. In Morrison itself, the Court determined that congressional findings were insufficient to justify the VAWA as an exercise of Fourteenth Amendment power. 529 U.S. at 619-20.

529 U.S. at 614.

529 U.S. at 615-16. Applying the principle of constitutional doubt, the Court in Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), interpreted the federal arson statute as inapplicable to the arson of a private, owner-occupied residence. Were the statute interpreted to apply to such residences, the Court noted, "hardly a building in the land would fall outside [its] domain," and the statute's validity under Lopez would be squarely raised. 529 U.S. at 857.

529 U.S. at 618.

Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960); Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950); Mitchell v. United States, 313 U.S. 80 (1941); Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (1946).

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, 78 Stat. 241, 243, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a (b).

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).

Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).

Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969).

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 , 258 (1964); Katzen- bach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 , 301 -304 (1964).

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 , 257 (1964).

379 U.S. at 252-53; Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 , 299 -301 (1964).

Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883); United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876); Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651 (1951).

The "open housing" provision of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, Title VIII, 82 Stat. 73, 81, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, was based on the commerce clause, but in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968), the Court held that antidiscrimination-in-housing legislation could be based on the Thirteenth Amendment and made operative against private parties. Similarly, the Court has concluded that although § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is judicially enforceable only against "state action," Congress is not so limited under its enforcement authorization of § 5. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 , 761 , 774 (1966) (concurring opinions); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971).

E.g., Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976); Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977); Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980); McElroy v. United States, 455 U. S. 642 (1982).

18 U.S.C. § 2421.

18 U.S.C. § 2312.

18 U.S.C. § 1201.

18 U.S.C. § 1951. And see, 18 U.S.C. § 1952.

Title II, 82 Stat. 159 (1968), 18 U.S.C. § 891 et seq.

Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971). See also Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858 (1985).

Thus, by Article I, § 10, cl. 2, States are denied the power to "lay any Im- posts or Duties on Imports or Exports" except by the consent of Congress. The clause applies only to goods imported from or exported to another country, not from or to another State, Woodruff v. Parham, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 123 (1869), which prevents its application to interstate commerce, although Chief Justice Marshall thought to the contrary, Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 , 449 (1827), and the contrary has been strongly argued. W. CROSSKEY, POLITICS AND THE CONSTITUTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES 295-323 (1953).

THE FEDERALIST No. 32 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 199-203. Note that in connection with the discussion that follows, Hamilton avowed that the taxing power of the States, save for imposts or duties on imports or exports, "remains undiminished." Id. at 201. The States "retain [the taxing] authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense[.]" Id. at 199.

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 11 (1824). Justice Johnson's assertion, concurring, was to the same effect. Id. at 226. Late in life, James Madison stated that the power had been granted Congress mainly as "a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States." 4 LETTERS AND OTHER WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 14-15 (1865).

It was evident from THE FEDERALIST that the principal aim of the commerce clause was the protection of the national market from the oppressive power of individual States acting to stifle or curb commerce. Id. at No. 7, 39- 41 (Hamilton); No. 11, 65-73 (Hamilton); No. 22, 135-137 (Hamilton); No. 42, 283-284 (Madison); No. 53, 362-364 (Madison). See H. P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 , 533 (1949). For a comprehensive history of the adoption of the commerce clause, which does not indicate a definitive answer to the question posed, see Abel, The Commerce Clause in the Constitutional Convention and in Contemporary Comment, 25 MINN. L. REV. 432 (1941). Professor Abel discovered only nine references in the Convention records to the commerce clause, all directed to the dangers of interstate rivalry and retaliation. Id. at 470-71 & nn. 169-75.

The strongest suggestion of exclusivity found in the Convention debates is a remark by Madison. "Whether the States are now restrained from laying tonnage duties depends on the extent of the power 'to regulate commerce.' These terms are vague but seem to exclude this power of the States." 2 M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 625 (rev. ed. 1937). However, the statement is recorded during debate on the clause, Art. I, § 10, cl. 3, prohibiting States from laying tonnage duties. That the Convention adopted this clause, when tonnage duties would certainly be one facet of regulating interstate and foreign commerce, casts doubt on the assumption that the commerce power itself was intended to be exclusive.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 , 203 (1824).

22 U.S. at 210-11.

The writings detailing the history are voluminous. See, e.g., F. FRANKFURTER, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE UNDER MARSHALL, TANEY, AND WHITE (1937); B. GAVIT, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (1932) (usefully containing appendices cataloguing every commerce clause decision of the Supreme Court to that time); Sholleys, The Negative Implications of the Commerce Clause, 3 U. CHI. L. REV. 556 (1936). Among the recent writings, see Sedler, The Negative Commerce Clause as a Restriction on State Regulation and Taxation: An Analysis in Terms of Constitutional Structure, 31 WAYNE L. REV. 885 (1985) (a disputed conceptualization arguing the Court followed a consistent line over the years), and articles cited, id. at 887 n.4.

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 13-14, 16.

22 U.S. at 17-18, 209. In Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122 , 193 -196 (1819), Chief Justice Marshall denied that the grant of the bankruptcy power to Congress was exclusive. See also Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820) (militia).

27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 24 5, 252 (1829).

53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1851). The issue of exclusive federal power and the separate issue of the dormant commerce clause was present in the License Cases, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 504 (1847), and the Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283 (1849), but, despite the fact that much ink was shed in multiple opinions discussing the questions, nothing definitive emerged. Chief Justice Taney, in contrast to Marshall, viewed the clause only as a grant of power to Congress, containing no constraint upon the States, and the Court's role was to void state laws in contravention of federal legislation. 46 U.S. (5 How.) at 573; 48 U.S. (7 How.) at 464.

48 U.S. at 317-20. Although Chief Justice Taney had formerly taken the strong position that Congress' power over commerce was not exclusive, he acquiesced silently in the Cooley opinion. For a modern discussion of Cooley, see Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 , 552 -560 (1973), in which, in the context of the copyright clause, the Court, approving Cooley for commerce clause purposes, refused to find the copyright clause either fully or partially exclusive.

Reading R.R. v. Pennsylvania, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 232 (1873). For cases in which the commerce clause basis was intermixed with other express or implied powers, see Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868); Steamship Co. v. Portwardens, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 31 (1867); Woodruff v. Parham, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 123 (1868). Chief Justice Marshall, in Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 , 488 - 489 (1827), indicated, in dicta, that a state tax might violate the commerce clause.

Just a few years earlier, the Court, in an opinion that merged commerce clause and import-export clause analyses, had seemed to suggest that it was a discriminatory tax or law that violates the commerce clause and not simply a tax on interstate commerce. Woodruff v. Parham, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 123 (1869).

"Where the subject matter requires a uniform system as between the States, the power controlling it is vested exclusively in Congress, and cannot be encroached upon by the State." Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 , 108 -109 (1890). The commerce clause "remains in the Constitution as a grant of power to Congress . . . and as a diminution pro tanto of absolute state sovereignty over the same subject matter." Carter v. Virginia, 321 U.S. 131 , 137 (1944). The commerce clause, the Court has celebrated, "does not say what the states may or may not do in the absence of congressional action, nor how to draw the line between what is and what is not commerce among the states. Perhaps even more than by interpretation of its written word, this Court has advanced the solidarity and prosperity of this Nation by the meaning it has given these great silences of the Constitution." H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 , 534-535 (1949). More recently, the Court has taken to stating that "[t]he Commerce Clause 'has long been recognized as a self-executing limitation on the power of the States to enact laws imposing substantial burdens on such commerce.'" Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439 , 447 (1991) (quoting South- Central Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 , 87 (1984) (emphasis supplied).

91 U.S. 275 (1875).

91 U.S. at 282. In Steamship Co. v. Portwardens, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 31 , 33(1867), the Court stated that congressional silence with regard to matters of "local" concern may signify willingness that the States regulate. Cf. Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 , 479 n.1 (1939). The fullest development of the "silence" rationale was not by the Court but by a renowned academic, Professor Dowling. Interstate Commerce and State Power, 29 VA. L. REV. 1 (1940); Interstate Commerce and State Power-Revisited Version, 47 COLUM. L. REV. 546 (1947).

Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 , 768 (1945).

325 U.S. at 769. See also California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 , 728 (1949).

91 U.S. 27 5, 277 , 278, 279, 280, 281, 282 (1876).

91 U.S. at 280-81; Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 , 446 (1827) (Chief Justice Marshall); Guy v. City of Baltimore, 100 U.S. 434 , 440 (1879); Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 550 , 552 (1935); Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 , 754 (1981).

E.g., Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434 , 440 (1939); McLeod v. J. E. Dilworth Co., 322 U.S. 327 , 330 -331 (1944); Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249 , 252 , 256 (1946); H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 , 538 , 539 (1949); Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439 , 447 -450 (1991). "[W]e have steadfastly adhered to the central tenet that the Commerce Clause 'by its own force created an area of trade free from interference by the States.'" American Trucking Ass'ns v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 , 280 (1987) (quoting Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm'n, 429 U.S. 318 , 328 (1977)).

E.g., Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Natural Resources Dep't, 504 U.S. 353 , 359 (1992); Quill Corp. v. North Dakota ex rel. Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298 , 309 (1992); Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437 , 455 (1992). Indeed, the Court, in Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439 , 447 -450 (1991), broadened its construction of the clause, holding that it confers a "right" upon individuals and companies to engage in interstate trade. With respect to the exercise of the power, the Court has recognized Congress' greater expertise to act and noted its hesitancy to impose uniformity on state taxation. Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U.S. 267 , 280 (1978). Cf. Quill Corp., 504 U.S. at 318.

In McCarroll v. Dixie Lines, 309 U.S. 176 , 183 (1940), Justice Black, for himself and Justices Frankfurter and Douglas, dissented, taking precisely this view. See also Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U.S. 307 , 316 (1938) (Justice Black dissenting in part); Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434 , 442 (1939) (Justice Black dissenting); Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 , 784 (1945) (Justice Black dissenting); id. at 795 (Justice Douglas dissenting). Justices Douglas and Frankfurter subsequently wrote and joined opinions applying the dormant commerce clause. In Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Calvert, 347 U.S. 157 , 166 (1954), the Court rejected the urging that it uphold all not-patently discriminatory taxes and let Congress deal with conflicts. More recently, Justice Scalia has taken the view that, as a matter of original intent, a "dormant" or "negative" commerce power cannot be justified in either taxation or regulation cases, but, yielding to the force of precedent, he will vote to strike down state actions that discriminate against interstate commerce or that are governed by the Court's precedents, without extending any of those precedents. CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69, 94 (1987) (concurring); Tyler Pipe Indus. v. Washington State Dep't of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 , 259 (1987) (concurring in part and dissenting in part); Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, 486 U.S. 888 , 895 (1988) (concurring in judgment); American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Smith, 496 U.S. 167, 200 (1990) (concurring); Itel Containers Int'l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U. . 60 , 78 (1993) (Justice Scalia concurring) (reiterating view); Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 , 200 -01 (1995) (Justice Scalia, with Justice Thomas joining) (same). Justice Thomas has written an extensive opinion rejecting both the historical and jurisprudential basis of the dormant commerce clause and expressing a preference for reliance on the imports- exports clause. Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U. S. 564 , 609 (1997) (dissenting; joined by Justice Scalia entirely and by Chief Justice Rehnquist as to the commerce clause but not the imports-exports clause).

Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794 (1976).

Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980).

447 U.S. at 436-37.

See also White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, 460 U.S. 204 (1983) (city may favor its own residents in construction projects paid for with city funds); South-Central Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984) (illustrating the deep divisions in the Court respecting the scope of the exception).

10 Stat. 112, § 6.

Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 54 U.S. (13 How.) 518 (1852), statute sustained in Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421 (1856). The latter decision seemed facially contrary to a dictum of Justice Curtis in Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 , 318 (1851), and cf. Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 , 263 n. 4 (1987) (Justice Scalia concurring in part and dissenting in part), but if indeed the Court is interpreting the silence of Congress as a bar to action under the dormant commerce clause, then when Congress speaks it is enacting a regulatory authorization for the States to act.

Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 , 701 (1883).

In Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 , 449 (1827), in which the "original package" doctrine originated in the context of state taxing powers exercised on imports from a foreign country, Marshall in dictum indicated the same rule would apply to imports from sister States. The Court refused to follow the dictum in Woodruff v. Parham, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 123 (1869).

Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).

Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888).

125 U.S. 465 (1888).

Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890).

26 Stat. 313 (1890), sustained in, In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545 (1891).

Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U.S. 412 (1898).

37 Stat. 699 (1913), sustained in James Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Md. Ry., 242 U.S. 311 (1917). See also Department of Revenue v. Beam Distillers, 377 U.S. 341 (1964).

National Prohibition, under the Eighteenth Amendment, first cast these conflicts into the shadows, and § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment significantly altered the terms of the dispute. But that section is no authorization for the States to engage in mere economic protectionism separate from concerns about the effect of the traffic in liquor. Bacchus Imports Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984); Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 (1986); Healy v. The Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324 (1989).

322 U.S. 533 (1944).

59 Stat. 33, 15 U.S.C. § 1011-15.

328 U.S. 408 (1946).

328 U.S. at 429-30, 434-35. The Act restored state taxing and regulatory powers over the insurance business to their scope prior to South-Eastern Underwriters. Discriminatory state taxation otherwise cognizable under the commerce clause must, therefore, be challenged under other provisions of the Constitution. See Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 451 U.S. 648 (1981). An equal protection challenge was successful in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (1985), invalidating a discriminatory tax and stating that a favoring of local industries "constitutes the very sort of parochial discrimination that the Equal Protection Clause was intended to prevent." Id. at 878. Controversial when rendered, Ward may be a sport in the law. See Northeast Bancorp v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 472 U.S. 159 , 176 -178 (1985).

Northeast Bancorp v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 472 U.S. 159 , 174 (1985) (interpreting a provision of the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1842(d), permitting regional interstate bank acquisitions expressly approved by the State in which the acquired bank is located, as authorizing state laws that allow only banks within the particular region to acquire an in-state bank, on a reciprocal basis, since what the States could do entirely they can do in part).

South-Central Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 , 90 (1984).

467 U.S. at 92. Earlier cases had required express statutory sanction of state burdens on commerce but under circumstances arguably less suggestive of congressional approval. E.g., Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 958 -960 (1982) (congressional deference to state water law in 37 statutes and numerous interstate compacts did not indicate congressional sanction for invalid state laws imposing a burden on commerce); New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331 , 341 (1982) (disclaimer in Federal Power Act of intent to deprive a State of "lawful authority" over interstate transmissions held not to evince a congressional intent "to alter the limits of state power otherwise imposed by the Commerce Clause"). But see White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, 460 U.S. 204 (1983) (Congress held to have sanctioned municipality's favoritism of city residents through funding statute under which construction funds were received).

Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986) (holding that Lacey Act's reinforcement of state bans on importation of fish and wildlife neither authorizes state law otherwise invalid under the Clause nor shifts analysis from the presumption of invalidity for discriminatory laws to the balancing test for state laws that burden commerce only incidentally).

Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450 , 457 - 458 (1959) (in part quoting Miller Bros. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 , 344 (1954)). Justice Frankfurter was similarly skeptical of definitive statements. "To attempt to harmonize all that has been said in the past would neither clarify what has gone before nor guide the future. Suffice it to say that especially in this field opinions must be read in the setting of the particular cases and as the product of preoccupation with their special facts." Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249 , 251 -252 (1946). The comments in all three cases dealt with taxation, but they could just as well have included regulation.

Infra pp. 240-42. See also Hillside Dairy, Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59 (2003) (authorization of state laws regulating milk solids does not authorize milk pricing and pooling laws).

In addition to the sources previously cited, see J. HELLERSTEIN & W. HELLERSTEIN, STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION-CASES AND MATERIALS ch. 6, 241 (5th ed. 1988) passim. For a succinct description of the history, see Hellerstein, State Taxation of Interstate Business: Perspectives on Two Centuries of Constitutional Adjudication, 41 TAX LAW. 37 (1987).

Reading R.R. v. Pennsylvania, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 232 (1873).

82 U.S. at 275.

82 U.S. at 275-76, 279.

82 U.S. at 279-80.

82 U.S. at 280.

82 U.S. at 281-82.

Reading R.R. v. Pennsylvania, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 284 (1872).

82 U.S. at 293.

82 U.S. at 294. This case was overruled 14 years later, when the Court voided substantially the same tax in Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326 (1887).

See The Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard), 230 U.S. 352 , 398 - 412 (1913) (reviewing and summarizing at length both taxation and regulation cases). See also Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 265 U.S. 298 , 307 (1924).

Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 120 U.S. 489 , 497 (1887); Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640 , 648 (1888).

The Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard), 230 U.S. 352 , 400 -401 (1913).

The Delaware R.R. Tax, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 206 , 232 (1873). See Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 439 (1894); Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U.S. 688 (1895). See cases cited in J. HELLERSTEIN & W. HELLERSTEIN, supra n. 891, at 215-219.

E.g., Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275 (1875); Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U.S. 489(1887); Darnell & Son Co. v. City of Memphis, 208 U.S. 113 (1908); Bethlehem Motors Corp. v. Flynt, 256 U.S. 421 (1921).

Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 (1938); McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33 (1940); International Harvester Co. v. Department of Treasury, 322 U.S. 340 (1944); International Harvester Co. v. Evatt, 329 U.S. 416 (1947).

E.g., Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U.S. 434 (1939); Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Co., 330 U.S. 422 (1947); Central Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, 334 U.S. 653 (1948). Notice the Court's distinguishing of Central Greyhound in Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, 514 U.S. 175 , 188-91 (1995).

Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249 (1946); Spector Motor Service v. O'Connor, 340 U.S. 602 (1951).

Thus, the States carefully phrased tax laws so as to impose on interstate companies not a license tax for doing business in the State, which was not permitted, Railway Express Agency v. Virginia, 347 U.S. 359 (1954), but as a franchise tax on intangible property or the privilege of doing business in a corporate form, which was permissible. Railway Express Agency v. Virginia, 358 U.S. 434(1959); Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U.S. 100 (1975). Also, the Court increasingly found the tax to be imposed on a local activity in instances it would previously have seen to be an interstate activity. E.g., Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U.S. 80 (1948); General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436 (1964); Standard Pressed Steel Co. v. Department of Revenue, 419 U.S. 560 (1975).

Sedler, The Negative Commerce Clause as a Restriction on State Regulation and Taxation: An Analysis in Terms of Constitutional Structure, 31 WAYNE L. REV. 885, 924-925 (1985). In addition to the sources already cited, see the Court's summaries in The Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard), 230 U.S. 352 , 398 - 412 (1913), and Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 , 766 -770 (1945). In the latter case, Chief Justice Stone was reconceptualizing the standards under the clause, but the summary represents a faithful recitation of the law.

See DiSanto v. Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34 , 44 (1927) (Justice Stone dissenting). The dissent was the precurser to Chief Jusdtice Stone's reformulation of the standard in 1945. DiSanto was overruled in California v. Thompson, 313 U.S. 109 (1941).

Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519 (1839); Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U.S. 494 (1926); Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U.S. 202 (1944).

Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47 (1891); International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U.S. 91 (1910).

Dahnke-Walker Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282 (1921); Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman, 419 U.S. 20 (1974). But see Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-on Drugs, 366 U.S. 276 (1961).

Wabash, S. L. & P. Ry. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886). The power of the States generally to set rates had been approved in Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. Iowa, 94 U.S. 155 (1877), and Peik v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 94 U.S. 164 (1877). After the Wabash decision, States retained power to set rates for passengers and freight taken up and put down within their borders. Wisconsin R.R. Comm'n v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.R., 257 U.S. 563 (1922). Generally, the Court drew the line at regulations that provided for adequate service, not any and all service. Thus, one class of cases dealt with requirements that trains stop at designated cities and towns. The regulations were upheld in such cases as Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U.S. 142 (1897), and Lake Shore & Mich. South. Ry. v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285(1899), and invalidated in Illinois Central R. R. v. Illinois, 142 (1896). See Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. Wisconsin R.R. Comm'n, 237 U.S. 220 , 226 (1915); St. Louis & S. F. Ry. v. Public Service Comm'n, 254 U.S. 535 , 536 -537 (1921). The cases were extremely fact particularistic.

E.g., Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888) (required locomotive engineers to be examined and licensed by the State, until Congress should deem otherwise); New York, N. H. & H. R.R. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628 (1897) (fobidding heating of passenger cars by stoves); Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. v. Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453 (1911) (requiring three brakemen on freight trains of more than 25 cars).

E.g., Terminal Ass'n v. Trainmen, 318 U.S. 1 (1943) (requiring railroad to provide caboose cars for its employees); Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299 (1896) (forbidding freight trains to run on Sundays). But see Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Blackwell, 244 U.S. 310 (1917) (voiding as too onerous on interstate transportation law requiring trains to come to almost a complete stop at all grade crossings, when there were 124 highway crossings at grade in 123 miles, doubling the running time).

Four cases over a lengthy period sustained the laws. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453 (1911); St. Louis, Iron Mt. & S. Ry. v. Arkansas, 240 U.S. 518 (1916); Missouri Pacific Co. v. Norwood, 283 U.S. 249 (1931); Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R.R., 382 U.S. 423 (1966). In the latter case, the Court noted the extensive and conflicting record with regard to safety, but it then ruled that with the issue in so much doubt it was peculiarly a legislative choice.

Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915); Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916).

E.g., Bradley v. Public Utility Comm'n, 289 U.S. 92 (1933) (State could deny an interstate firm a necessary certificate of convenience to operate as a common carrier on the basis that the route was overcrowded); Welch Co. v. New Hampshire, 306 U.S. 79 (1939) (maximum hours for drivers of motor vehicles); Eichholz v. Public Service Comm'n, 306 U.S. 268 (1939) (reasonable regulations of traffic). But compare Michigan Comm'n v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570 (1925) (State may not impose common-carrier responsibilities on business operating between States that did not assume them); Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925) (denial of certificate of convenience under circumstances was a ban on competition).

E.g., Mauer v. Hamilton, 309 U.S. 598 (1940) (ban on oiperation of any motor vehicle carrying any other vehicle above the head of the operator). By far, the example of the greatest deference is South Carolina Highway Dep't v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177 (1938), in which the Court upheld, in a surprising Stone opinion, truck weight and width restrictions prescribed by practically no other State (in terms of the width, no other).

E.g., Transportation Co. v. City of Chicago, 99 U.S. 635 (1879); Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U.S. 1 (1888). See Kelly v. Washington, 302 U.S. 1 (1937) (upholding state inspection and regulation of tugs operating in navigable waters, in absence of federal law).

E.g., Western Union Tel Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105 (1918); Lemke v. Framers Grain Co., 258 U.S. 50 (1922); State Corp. Comm'n v. Wichita Gas Co., 290 U.S. 561 (1934).

Milk Control Board v. Eisenberg Co., 306 U.S. 346 (1939) (milk); Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) (raisins).

91 U.S. 275 (1875).

136 U.S. 313 (1890).

E.g., Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891) (law requiring postslaughter inspection in each county of meat transported over 100 miles from the place of slaughter); Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) (city ordinance preventing selling of milk as pasteurized unless it had been processed and bottled at an approved plant within a radius of five miles from the central square of Madison). As the latter case demonstrates, it is constitutionally irrelevant that other Wisconsin producers were also disadvantaged by the law. For a modern application of the principle of these cases, see Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill v. Michigan Natural Resources Dept., 504 U.S. 353 (1992) (forbidding landfills from accepting outof-county wastes). And see C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 , 391 (1994) (discrimination against interstate commerce not preserved because local businesses also suffer).

294 U.S. 511 (1935). See also Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 (1964). With regard to products originating within the State, the Court had no difficulty with price fixing. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502 (1934).

336 U.S. 525 (1949). For the most recent case in this saga, see West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994).

And the Court does not permit a State to combat discrimination against its own products by admitting only products (here, again, milk) from States that have reciprocity agreements with it to protect its own dealers. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Cottrell, 424 U.S. 366 (1976).

Formulation of a balancing test was achieved in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945),and was thereafter maintained more or less consistently. The Court's current phrasing of the test was in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970).

Indeed, scholars dispute just when the modern standard was firmly adopted. The conventional view is that it was articulated in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977), but there also seems little doubt that the foundation of the present law was laid in Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450 (1959).

Compare Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249 , 252 -256 (1946), with Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250 , 258 , 260 (1938).

358 U.S. 450 (1959).

358 U.S. at 461-62. See Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250 , 254 (1938). For recent reiterations of the principle, see Quill Corp. v. North Dakota ex rel. Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298 , 310 n.5 (1992) (citing cases).

Hellerstein, State Taxation of Interstate Business: Perspectives on Two Centuries of Constitutional Adjudication, 41 TAX LAW. 37, 54 (1987).

Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. O'Connor, 340 U.S. 602 (1951). The attenuated nature of the purported distinction was evidenced in Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U.S. 100 (1975), in which the Court sustained a nondiscriminatory, fairly apportioned franchise tax that was measured by the taxpayer's capital stock, imposed on a pipeline company doing an exclusively interstate business in the taxing State, on the basis that it was a tax imposed on the privilege of conducting business in the corporate form.

430 U.S. 274 (1977).

430 U.S. at 279, 288. "In reviewing Commerce Clause challenges to state taxes, our goal has instead been to 'establish a consistent and rational method of inquiry' focusing on 'the practical effect of a challenged tax.'" Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 , 615 (1981) (quoting Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425 , 443 (1980)).

430 U.S. at 279. The rationale of these four parts of the test is set out in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota ex rel. Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298 , 312 -13 (1992). A recent application of the four-part Complete Auto Transit test is Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (1995).

It had been thought that the tests of nexus under the commerce clause and the due process clause were identical, but, controversially, in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota ex rel. Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298, 306 -08 (1992), but compare id. at 319 (Justice White concurring in part and dissenting in part), the Court, stating that the two "are closely related," (citing National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 , 756 (1967)), held that the two constitutional requirements "differ fundamentally" and it found a state tax met the due process test while violating the commerce clause.

National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 , 756 (1967). The phraseology is quoted from a due process case, Miller Bros. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 , 344 -345 (1954), but as a statement it probably survives the bifurcation of the tests in Quill.

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota ex rel. Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298 , 312 (1992).

504 U.S. at 313.

Scripto v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960); National Geographic Society v. California Bd. of Equalization,, 430 U.S. 551 (1977). The agents in the State in Scripto were independent contractors, rather than employees, but this distinction was irrelevant. See also Tyler Pipe Indus. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 , 249 -250 (1987) (reaffirming Scripto on this point). See also D. H. Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24 (1988) (imposition of use tax on catalogs, printed outside State at direction of an in-state corporation and shipped to prospective customers within the State, upheld). (5 of 24)04/04/2006 14:10:49 US Constitution Annotated - State Taxation and Regulation: the Modern Law

National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), reaffirmed with respect to the commerce clause in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota ex rel. Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

Some in-state contact is necessary in many instances by statutory compulson, Reacting to Northwestern States, Congress enacted P.L. 86-272, 15 U.S.C. § 381, providing that mere solicitation by a company acting outside the State did not support imposition of a state income tax on a company's proceeds. See Heublein, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 409 U.S. 275 (1972).

Standard Pressed Steel Co. v. Department of Revenue, 419 U.S. 560 (1975). See also General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436 (1964).

Tyler Pipe Industries v. Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 , 249 -251 (1987). The Court noted its agreement with the state court holding that "'the crucial factor governing nexus is whether the activities performed in this state on behalf of the taxpayer are significantly associated with the taxpayer's ability to establish and maintain a market in this state for the sales.'" Id. at 250.

United Air Lines v. Mahin, 410 U.S. 623 (1973).

Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159 , 165 -169 (1983); ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 458 U.S. 307 , 316 -17 (1982). Hunt-Wesson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal., 528 U.S. 58 (2000) (interest deduction not properly apportioned between unitary and non-unitary business).

E.g., Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 , 26(1891); Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry., 142 U.S. 217 , 278 (1891).

The recent cases are, Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U.S. 267 (1978); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 445 U.S. 425 (1980); Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 447 U.S. 207 (1980); ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 458 U.S. 307 (1982); F. W. Woolworth Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 458 U.S. 354 (1982); Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 (1983); Tyler Pipe Industries v. Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 , 251 (1987) Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 (1992). Cf. American Trucking Ass'ns Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 (1987).

Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U.S. 267 , 278 -280 (1978). Rather, "we determine whether a tax is fairly apportioned by examining whether it is internally and externally consistent." "To be internally consistent, a tax must be structured so that if every State were to impose an identical tax, no multiple taxation would result. Thus, the internal consistency test focuses on the text of the challenged statute and hypothesizes a situation where other States have passed an identical statute... ." "The external consistency test asks whether the State has taxed only that portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed. We thus examine the in-state business activity which triggers the taxable event and the practical or economic effect of the tax on that interstate activity."In the latter case, the Court upheld as properly apportioned a state tax on the gross charge of any telephone call originated or terminated in the State and charged to an in-state service address, regardless of where the telephone call was billed or paid. A complex state tax imposed on trucks displays the operation of the test. Thus, a state registration tax met the internal consistency test because every State honored every other States', and a motor fuel tax similarly was sustained because it was apportioned to mileage traveled in the State, whereas lump-sum annual taxes, an axle tax and an identification marker fee, being unapportioned flat taxes imposed for the use of the State's roads, were voided, under the internal consistency test, because if every State imposed them the burden on interstate commerce would be great.

Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 , 261 (1989).

488 U.S. at 261, 262 (internal citations omitted).

Id. The tax law provided a credit for any taxpayer who was taxed by another State on the same call. Actual multiple taxation could thus be avoided, the risks of other multiple taxation was small, and it was impracticable to keep track of the taxable transactions.

American Trucking Ass'ns v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 (1987).

Indeed, there seemed to be a precedent squarely on point, Central Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, 334 U.S. 653 (1948). Struck down in that case was a state statute that failed to apportion its taxation of interstate bus ticket sales to reflect the distance traveled within the State.

Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (1995). Indeed, the Court analogized the tax to that in Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (1989), a tax on interstate telephone services that originated in or terminated in the State and that were bill to an in-state address.

Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 516 U.S. 325 (1996). The State had defended on the basis that the tax was a "compensatory" one designed to make interstate commerce bear a burden already borne by intrastate commerce. The Court recognized the legitimacy of the defense, but it found the tax to meet none of the three criteria for classification as a valid compensatory tax. Id. at 333-44. See also South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Alabama, 526 U.S. 160 (1999) (tax not justified as compensatory).

Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm'n, 429 U.S. 318 , 329 (1977) (quoting, Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450 , 457 (1959)). The principle, as we have observed above, is a long-standing one under the commerce clause. E.g., Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275 (1876).

Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 , 753 -760 (1981). But see Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 , 617 -619 (1981). And see Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality, 511 U.S. 93 (1994) (surcharge on in-state disposal of solid wastes that discriminates against companies disposing of waste generated in other States invalid).

467 U.S. 638 (1984).

The Court applied the "internal consistency" test here too, in order to determine the existence of discrimination. 467 U.S. at 644-45. Thus, the wholesaler did not have to demonstrate it had paid a like tax to another State, only that if other States imposed like taxes it would be subject to discriminatory taxation. See also Tyler Pipe Industries v. Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987); American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 (1987); Amerada Hess Corp. v. Director, New Jersey Taxation Div., 490 U. S. 66 (1989); Kraft General Foods v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue, 505 U.S. 71 -1992

Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984).

New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269 (1988). Compare Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 516 U.S. 325 (1996) (state intangibles tax on a fraction of the value of corporate stock owned by in-state residents inversely proportional to the corporation's exposure to the state income tax violated dormant commerce clause), with General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 (1997) (state imposition of sales and use tax on all sales of natural gas except sales by regulated public utilities, all of which were in-state companies, but covering all other sellers that were out-of-state companies did not violate dormant commerce clause because regulated and unregulated companies were not similarly situated).

520 U.S. 564 (1997). The decision was a 5-to-4 one with a strong dissent by Justice Scalia, id. at 595, and a philosophical departure by Justice Thomas. Id. at 609.

520 U.S. at 586.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 , 620-29 (1981). Two state taxes imposing flat rates on truckers, because they did not vary directly with miles traveled or with some other proxy for value obtained from the State, were found to violate this standard in American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 , 291 (1987), but this oblique holding was tagged onto an elaborate opinion holding the taxes invalid under two other Brady tests, and, thus, the precedential value is questionable.

325 U.S. 761 (1945).

E.g., DiSanto v. Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34 , 43 (1927) (dissenting); California v. Thompson, 313 U.S. 109 (1941); Duckworth v. Arkansas, 314 U. S. 390(1941); Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 362 -368 (1943) (alternative holding).

Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 , 768 -769 (1941).

325 U.S. at 769.

325 U.S. at 770-71.

397 U.S. 13 7, 142 (1970).

Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437 , 454 (1992) (quoting City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 624 (1978)). See also Brown- Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 , 579 (1986). In Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986), the Court did uphold a protectionist law, finding a valid justification aside from economic protectionism. The State barred the importation of out-of-state baitfish, and the Court credited lower-court findings that legitimate ecological concerns existed about the possible presence of parasites and nonnative species in baitfish shipments.

Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437 (1992). See also Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 (1981) (a tax case, invalidating a state first-use tax, which, because of exceptions and credits, imposed a tax only on natural gas moving out-of-state, because of impermissible discrimination).

New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331 (1982). See also Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979) (voiding a ban on transporting minnows caught in the State for sale outside the State); Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941 (1982) (invalidating a ban on the withdrawal of ground water from any well in the State intended for use in another State). These cases largely eviscerated a line of older cases recognizing a strong state interest in protection of animals and resources. See Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896). New England Power had rather old antecedents. E.g., West v. Kansas Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 (1911); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923).

432 U.S. 333 (1977). Other cases in which the State was attempting to promote and enhance local products and businesses include Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (State required producer of high-quality cantaloupes to pack them in the State, rather than in an adjacent State at considerably less expense, in order that the produce be identified with the producing State); Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928) (State banned export of shrimp from State until hulls and heads were removed and processed, in order to favor canning and manufacture within the State).

That discriminatory effects will result in invalidation, as well as purposeful discrimination, is also drawn from Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349-1951

E.g., H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949). See also Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Cottrell, 424 U.S. 366 (1976) (state effort to combat discrimination by other States against its milk through reciprocity provisions). In West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994), the Court held invalidly discriminatory against interstate commerce a state milk pricing order, which imposed an assessment on all milk sold by dealers to in- state retailers, the entire assessment being distributed to in-state dairy farmers despite the fact that about two-thirds of the assessed milk was produced out of State. The avowed purpose and un-disputed effect of the provision was to enable higher-cost in-state dairy farmers to compete with lower-cost dairy farmers in other States.

Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc., 491 U.S. 324 (1989); Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 (1986). And see Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984) (a tax case). But cf. Pharmaceutical Research and Mfrs. of America v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644 (2003) (state prescription drug program providing rebates to participating companies does not regulate prices of out-of-state transactions and does not favor in-state over out-of-state companies).

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978), reaffirmed and applied in Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 (1992), and Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill v. Michigan Natural Resources Dept., 504 U. S. 353 (1992).

See also Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Quality, 511 U.S. 93 (1994) (discriminatory tax).

C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994).

See The Supreme Court, Leading Cases, 1993 Term, 108 HARV. L. REV. 139, 149-59 (1994). Weight was given to this consideration by Justice O'Connor, 511 U.S. at 401 (concurring) (local law an excessive burden on interstate commerce), and by Justice Souter, id. at 410 (dissenting).

Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) (California effort to bar "Okies," persons fleeing the Great Plains dust bowl in the Depression). Cf. the notable case of Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1867) (without tying it to any particular provision of Constitution, Court finds a protected right of interstate movement). The right of travel is now an aspect of equal protection jurisprudence.

449 U.S. 45 6, 470 -474 (1981).

437 U.S. 117 (1978).

325 U.S. 761 (1945). Interestingly, Justice Stone had written the opinion for the Court in South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U. S. 177 (1938), in which, in a similar case involving regulation of interstate transportation and proffered safety reasons, he had eschewed balancing and deferred overwhelmingly to the state legislature. Barnwell Bros. involved a state law that prohibited use on state highways of trucks that were over 90 inches wide or that had a gross weight over 20,000 pounds, with from 85% to 90% of the Nation's trucks exceeding these limits. This deference and refusal to evaluate evidence resurfaced in a case involving an attack on railroad "full- crew" laws. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Railroad Co., 393 U.S. 129 (1968).

The concern about the impact of one State's regulation upon the laws of other States is in part a reflection of the Cooley national uniformity interest and partly a hesitation about the autonomy of other States, E.g., CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69 , 88 -89 (1987); Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 , 583 -584 (1986).

Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 , 771 -75 (1945).

325 U.S. at 775-79, 781-84.

359 U.S. 520 (1959).

Raymond Motor Transp., Inc. v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429 (1978); Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662 (1981).

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662 , 670 -671 (1981), (quoting Raymond Motor Transp. v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429 , 441 , 443 (1978)). Both cases invalidated state prohibitions of the use of 65-foot single-trailer trucks on state highways.

Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970).

Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 (1980).

457 U.S. 624 (1982) (plurality opinion).

CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69 (1987).

E.g., Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 489 U.S. 493 , 525 -526 (1989); Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 , 472 - 474 (1981); Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 , 127 - 128 (1978). But see Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U.S. 888 (1988).

25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 (1827).

Article I, § 10, cl. 2. This aspect of the doctrine of the case was considerably expanded in Low v. Austin, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 29 (1872), and subsequent cases, to bar States from levying nondiscriminatory, ad valorem property taxes upon goods that are no longer in import transit. This line of cases was overruled in Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276 (1976).

See, e.g., Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Reily, 373 U.S. 64 (1963); Minnesota v. Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 (1933). After the holding in Michelin Tire, the two clauses are now congruent. The Court has observed that the two clauses are animated by the same policies. Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434 , 449 -50 n.14 (1979).

441 U.S. 434 (1979).

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 , 279 (1977). A state tax failed to pass the nondiscrimination standard in Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue & Finance, 505 U.S. 71 (1992). Iowa imposed an income tax on a unitary business operating throughout the United States and in several foreign countries. It included in the tax base of corporations the dividends the companies received from subsidiaries operating in foreign countries, but it allowed exclusions from the base of dividends received from domestic subsidiaries. A domestic subsidiary doing business in Iowa was taxed but not ones that did no business. Thus, there was a facial distinction between foreign and domestic commerce.

441 U.S. at 446, 448. See also Itel Containers Int'l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60 (1993) (sustaining state sales tax as applied to lease of containers delivered within the State and used in foreign commerce).

441 U.S. at 451-57. For income taxes, the test is more lenient, accepting not only the risk but the actuality of some double taxation as something simply inherent in accounting devices. Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 , 187 -192 (1983).

Wardair Canada v. Florida Dep't of Revenue, 477 U.S. 1 (1986).

Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159 (1983). The validity of the formula as applied to domestic corporations with foreign parents or to foreign corporations with foreign parents or foreign subsidiaries, so that some of the income earned abroad would be taxed within the taxing State, is a question of some considerable dispute.

512 U.S. 298 (1994).

The Supreme Court, Leading Cases, 1993 Term, 108 HARV. L. REV. 139, 139-49 (1993).

25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 41 9, 443 -444 (1827).

New York City v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837) (upholding reporting requirements imposed on ships' masters), overruled in Henderson v. New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1876); Passenger Cases (Smith v. Turner), 48 U.S. (7 How.) 282 (1849); Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876).

Campagnie Francaise De Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Bd. of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902); Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1 (1900); Morgan v. Louisiana, 118 U.S. 455 (1886).

New York ex rel. Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31 (1908).

Reliance could not be placed on Executive statements, the Court explained, since "the Constitution expressly grants Congress, not the President, the power to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' " 512 U.S. at 329. "Executive Branch communications that express federal policy but lack the force of law cannot render unconstitutional California's otherwise valid, congressionally condoned, use of worldwide combined reporting." Id. at 330. Dissenting Justice Scalia noted that, although the Court's ruling correctly restored preemptive power to Congress, "it permits the authority to be exercised by silence." Id. at 332.

The Supreme Court, Leading Cases, 1993 Term, 108 HARV. L. REV. 139, 139- 49 (1993).

Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434 , 456 n.20 (1979) (construing Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan, 333 U.S. 28 (1948).

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824).

A modern application of Gibbons v. Ogden is Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265 (1977), in which the Court, in reliance on the present version of the licensing statute utilized by Chief Justice Marshall, struck down state laws curtailing the operations of federally licensed vessels. In the course of the Douglas opinion, the Court observed that "[a]lthough it is true that the Court's view in Gibbons of the intent of the Second Congress in passing the Enrollment and Licensing Act is considered incorrect by commentators, its provisions have been repeatedly re-enacted in substantially the same form. We can safely assume that Congress was aware of the holding, as well as the criticism, of a case so renowned as Gibbons. We have no doubt that Congress has ratified the statutory interpretation of Gibbons and its progeny." Id. at 278-79.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 , 211 (1824). See also McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 436 (1819). Although preemption is basically constitutional in nature, deriving its forcefulness from the supremacy clause, it is much more like statutory decisionmaking, inasmuch as it depends upon an interpretation of an act of Congress in determining whether a state law is ousted. E.g., Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265, 271 -72 (1977). See also Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111 (1965). "Any such preemption or conflict claim is of course grounded in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution: if a state measure conflicts with a federal requirement, the state provision must give way. The basic question involved in these cases, however, is never one of interpretation of the Federal Constitution but inevitably one of comparing two statutes." Id. at 120.

Cases considered under this heading are overwhelmingly about federal legislation based on the commerce clause, but the principles enunciated are identical whatever source of power Congress utilizes. Therefore, cases arising under legislation based on other powers are cited and treated interchangeably.

Amalgamated Ass'n of Street Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274 , 285 - 286 (1971).

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 , 67 (1941). This case arose under the immigration power of cl. 4.

Cramton, Pennsylvania v. Nelson: A Case Study in Federal Preemption, 26 U. CHI. L. REV. 85, 87-88 (1956). "The [Court] appears to use essentially the same reasoning process in a case nominally hinging on preemption as it has in past cases in which the question was whether the state law regulated or burdened interstate commerce. [The] Court has adopted the same weighing of interests approach in preemption cases that it uses to determine whether a state law unjustifiably burdens interstate commerce. In a number of situations the Court has invalidated statutes on the preemption ground when it appeared that the state laws sought to favor local economic interests at the expense of the interstate market. On the other hand, when the Court has been satisfied that valid local interests, such as those in safety or in the reputable operation of local business, outweigh the restrictive effect on interstate commerce, the Court has rejected the preemption argument and allowed state regulation to stand." Note, Preemption as a Preferential Ground: A New Canon of Construction, 12 STAN. L. REV. 208, 217 (1959) (quoted approvingly as a "thoughtful student comment" in G. GUNTHER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 297 (12th ed. 1991)).

E.g., Charleston & W. Car. Ry. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U.S. 597 , 604 (1915). But see Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy, 249 U.S. 427 , 438 (1919).

E.g., Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941); Cloverleaf Butter v. Patterson, 315 U.S. 148 (1942); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947); California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949).

Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 , 96 (1992) (internal quotation marks and case citations omitted). Recourse to legislative history as one means of ascertaining congressional intent, although contested, is permissible. Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 , 606 -612 & n.4 (1991). "Absent explicit pre-emptive language, we have recognized at least two types of implied pre-emption: field pre-emption, where the scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it, . . . and conflict pre-emption, where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility, . . . or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." "Preemption of state law by federal statute or regulation is not favored 'in the absence of persuasive reasons- either that the nature of the regulated subject matters permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained." However, "[t]he relative importance to the State of its own law is not material when there is a conflict with a valid federal law, for the Framers of our Constitution provided that the federal law must prevail."

Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 , 525 (1977); FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52 , 56 -57 (1991); Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 , 604 -605 (1991).

Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 , 98 (1992) (internal quotation marks and case citations omitted). The same or similar language is used throughout the preemption cases. E.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 505 U.S. 504 , 516 (1992); id. at 532-33 (Justice Blackmun concurring and dissenting); id. at 545 (Justice Scalia concurring and dissenting); Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 , 604 -605 (1991); English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72 , 78 -80 (1990); Silkwood v. Kerr- McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 , 248 (1984); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 , 203-204 (1983); Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 , 153 (1982); Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 , 67 (1941).

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 , 142 (1963);, Chicago & Northwestern Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311 , 317 (1981). Where Congress legislates in a field traditionally occupied by the States, courts should "start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm., 461 U.S. 190 , 206 (1983) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 , 230 (1947)).

Free v. Brand, 369 U.S. 633 , 666 (1962).

Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U.S. 202 , 211 (1944) (per Justice Frankfurter).

Not only congressional enactments can preempt. Agency regulations, when Congress has expressly or implied empowered these bodies to preempt, are "the supreme law of the land" under the supremacy clause and can displace state law. E.g., Smiley v. Citibank, 517 U.S. 735 (1996); City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57 , 63 -64 (1988); Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984); Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982). Federal common law, i.e., law promulgated by the courts respecting uniquely federal interests and absent explicit statutory directive by Congress, can also displace state law. See Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (Supreme Court promulgated common-law rule creating government- contractor defense in tort liability suits, despite Congress having considered and failed to enact bills doing precisely this); Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U.S. 292 (1988) (civil liability of federal officials for actions taken in the course of their duty). Finally, ordinances of local governments are subject to preemption under the same standards as state law. Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, 471 U.S. 707 (1985).

Thus, § 408 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended by the Wholesome Meat Act, 21 U.S. C. § 678, provides that "[m]arking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirements in addition to, or different than, those made under this chapter may not be imposed by any state ... ." See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 , 528 -532 (1977). Similarly, much state action is saved by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(a), which states that "[n]othing in this chapter shall affect the jurisdiction of the securities commissioner (or any agency or officer performing like functions) of any State over any security or any person insofar as it does not conflict with the provisions of this chapter or the rules and regulations thereunder." For examples of other express preemptive provisions, see Norfolk & Western Ry. v. American Train Dispatchers' Ass'n, 499 U.S. 117 (1991); Exxon Corp. v. Hunt, 475 U.S. 355 (1986). And see Department of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993).

Aloha Airlines v. Director of Taxation, 464 U.S. 7 , 13 -14 (1983).

Morales v. TWA, 504 U.S. 374 (1992). The section, 49 U.S.C. § 1305(a) (1), was held to preempt state rules on advertising. See also American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995).

City of Columbus v. Ours Garage and Wrecker Serv., 122 S. Ct. 2226, 2230 (2002).

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 , 739 (1985), repeated in FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52 , 58 (1991).

29 U.S.C. §§ 1144(a), 1144(b)(2)(A), 1144(b)(2)(B). The Court has described this section as a "virtually unique pre-emption provision." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 , 24 n.26 (1983). See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 , 138 -139 (1990); and see id. at 142-45 (describing and applying another preemption provision of ERISA).

Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) (ERISA preempts state common-law claim of wrongful discharge to prevent employee attaining benefits under plan covered by ERISA); FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52 (1990) (provision of state motor-vehicle financial-responsibility law barring subrogation and reimbursement from claimant's tort recovery for benefits received from a self-insured health-care plan preempted by ERISA); Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (1987) (state law requiring employers to provide a one-time severance payment to employees in the event of a plant closing held not preempted by 5-4 vote); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) (state law mandating that certain minimum mental-health-care benefits be provided to those insured under general health-insurance policy or employee health-care plan is a law "which regulates insurance" and is not preempted); Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85 (1983) (state law forbidding discrimination in employee benefit plans on the basis of pregnancy not preempted, because of another saving provision in ERISA, and provision requiring employers to pay sick-leave benefits to employees unable to work because of pregnancy not preempted under construction of coverage sections, but both laws "relate to" employee benefit plans); Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504 (1981) (state law prohibiting plans from reducing benefits by amount of workers' compensation awards "relates to" employee benefit plan and is preempted); District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 (1992) (law requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage, equivalent to existing coverage, for workers receiving workers' compensation benefits); John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Harris Trust and Savings Bank, 510 U.S. 86 (1993) (ERISA's fiduciary standards, not conflicting state insurance laws, apply to insurance company's handling of general account assets derived from participating group annuity contract); New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995) (no preemption of statute that required hospitals to collect surcharges from patients covered by a commercial insurer but not from patients covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan); De Buono v. NYSA-ILA Medical and Clinical Services Fund, 520 U.S. 806 (1997); California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997) (decided not on the basis of the express preemption language but instead by implied preemption analysis).

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 505 U.S. 504 (1992). The decision as a canon of construction promulgated two controversial rules. First, the courts should interpret narrowly provisions that purport to preempt state police-power regulations, and, second, that when a law has express preemption language courts should look only to that language and presume that when the preemptive reach of a law is defined Congress did not intend to go beyond that reach, so that field and conflict preemption will not be found. Id. at 517; and id. at 532- 33 (Justice Blackmun concurring and dissenting). Both parts of this canon are departures from established law. Narrow construction when state police powers are involved has hitherto related to implied preemption, not express preemption, and courts generally have applied ordinary-meaning construction to such statutory language; further, courts have not precluded the finding of conflict preemption, though perhaps field preemption, because of the existence of some express preemptive language. See id. at 546-48 (Justice Scalia concurring and dissenting).

505 U.S. at 518-19 (opinion of the court), 533-34 (Justice Blackmun concurring).

505 U.S. at 520-30 (plurality opinion), 535-43 (Justice Blackmun concurring and dissenting), 548-50 (Justice Scalia concurring and dissenting).

518 U.S. 470 (1996). See also CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (under Federal Railroad Safety Act, a state common-law claim alleging negligence for operating a train at excessive speed is preempted, but a second claim alleging negligence for failure to maintain adequate warning devices at a grade crossing is not preempted); Norfolk So. Ry. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000) (applying Easterwood).

21 U.S.C. § 350k(a).

The dissent, by Justice O'Connor and three others, would have held preempted the latter claims, 518 U.S. at 509, whereas Justice Breyer thought that common-law claims would sometimes be preempted, but not here. Id. at 503 (concurring).

518 U.S. at 484-85. See also id. at 508 (Justice Breyer concurring); Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 , 288 -89 (1995); Barnett Bank v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 , 31 (1996); California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, Inc., 519 U.S. 316 , 334 (1997) (Justice Scalia concurring); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997) (using "stands as an obstacle" preemption analysis in an ERISA case, having express preemptive language, but declining to decide when implied preemption may be used despite express language), and id. at 854 (Justice Breyer dissenting) (analyzing the preemption issue under both express and implied standards).

529 U.S. 861 (2000).

The Court focused on the word "exempt" to give the saving clause a narrow application - as "simply bar[ring] a special kind of defense, . . . that compliance with a federal safety standard automatically exempts a defendant from state law, whether the Federal Government meant that standard to be an absolute requirement or only a minimum one." 529 U.S. at 869.

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 , 230 (1947). The case also is the source of the oft-quoted maxim that when Congress legislates in a field traditionally occupied by the States, courts should "start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Id.

312 U.S. 52 (1941).

The Court also said that courts must look to see whether under the circumstances of a particular case, the state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." 312 U.S. at 67. That standard is obviously drawn from conflict preemption, for the two standards are frequently intermixed. Nonetheless, not all state regulation is precluded. De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) (upholding a state law penalizing the employment of an illegal alien, the case arising before enactment of the federal law doing the same thing).

350 U.S. 497 (1956).

350 U.S. at 502-05. Obviously, there is a noticeable blending into conflict preemption.

Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947).

Compare Campbell v. Hussey, 368 U.S. 297 (1961) (state law requiring tobacco of a certain type to be marked by white tags, ousted by federal regulation that occupied the field and left no room for supplementation), with Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc., 373 U.S. 132 (1963) (state law setting minimum oil content for avocados certified as mature by federal regulation is complementary to federal law, since federal standard was a minimum one, the field having not been occupied). One should be wary of assuming that a state law that has dual purposes and impacts will not, just for the duality, be held to be preempted. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992); Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971) (under bankruptcy clause).

Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Energy Resources Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983). Neither does the same reservation of exclusive authority to regulate nuclear safety preempt imposition of punitive damages under state tort law, even if based upon the jury's conclusion that a nuclear licensee failed to follow adequate safety precautions. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984). See also English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72 (1990) (employee's state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress for her nuclear-plant employer's actions retaliating for her whistleblowing is not preempted as relating to nuclear safety).

Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit, 362 U.S. 440 (1960).

Askew v. American Waterways Operators, 411 U.S. 325 (1973).

Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978). United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) (applying Ray). See also Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U.S. 176 (1983) (preempting a state ban on pass-through of a severance tax on oil and gas, because Congress has occupied the field of wholesale sales of natural gas in interstate commerce); Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988) (Natural Gas Act preempts state regulation of securities issuance by covered gas companies); Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989) (under patent clause, state law extending patent-like protection to unpatented designs invades an area of pervasive federal regulation).

City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973).

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Mississippi Oil & Gas Board, 474 U.S. 409 (1986); Puerto Rico Dept. of Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp., 485 U.S. 495 (1988).

479 U.S. 1 (1986).

See also Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood School Dist., 469 U.S. 256 (1985) (state law requiring local governments to distribute federal payments in lieu of taxes in same manner as general state-tax revenues conflicts with federal law authorizing local governments to use the payments for any governmental purpose); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984) (state franchise law requiring judicial resolution of claims preempted by federal arbitration law precluding adjudication in state or federal courts of claims parties had contracted to submit to arbitration); Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987) (federal arbitration law preempts state law providing that court actions for collection of wages may be maintained without regard to agreements to arbitrate); Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (federal arbitration law preempts state law invalidating predispute arbitration agreements that were not entered into in contemplation of substantial interstate activity); Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996) (federal arbitration law preempts state statute that conditioned enforceability of arbitration clause on compliance with special notice requirement). See also Free v. Brand, 369 U.S. 663 (1962).

Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982).

California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987). Compare Cloverleaf Butter v. Patterson, 315 U.S. 148 (1942) (federal law preempts more exacting state standards, even though both could be complied with and state standards were harmonious with purposes of federal law).

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963).

The standard is, of course, drawn from Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 , 67 (1941). See also Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25(1996) (federal law empowering national banks in small towns to sell insurance preempts state law prohibiting banks from dealing in insurance; despite explicit preemption provision, state law stands as an obstacle to accomplishment of federal purpose).

Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 , 532 -543 (1977).

487 U.S. 131 (1988).

Philco Aviation v. Shacket, 462 U.S. 406 (1983).

520 U.S. 833 (1997).

Id. at 841. The dissent, id. at 854 (Justice Breyer), agreed that conflict analysis was appropriate, but he did not find that the state law achieved any result that ERISA required.

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000).

530 U.S. at 374 n.8.

Michigan Canners & Freezers Ass'n v. Agricultural Marketing & Bargaining Bd., 467 U.S. 461 (1984). See also Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953(1986) (state allocation of costs for purposes of setting retail electricity rates, by disallowing costs permitted by FERC in setting wholesale rates, frustrated federal regulation by possibly preventing the utility from recovering in its sales the costs of paying the FERC-approved wholesale rate); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984) (state ban on cable TV advertising frustrates federal policy in the copyright law by which cable operators pay a royalty fee for the right to retransmit distant broadcast signals upon agreement not to delete commercials); International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987) (damage action based on common law of downstream State frustrates Clean Water Act's policies favoring permitting State in interstate disputes and favoring predictability in permit process).

California v. FERC, 495 U.S. 490 (1990). The savings clause was found inapplicable on the basis of an earlier interpretation of the language in First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. FPC, 328 U.S. 152 (1946).

Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 , 614 -616 (1991).

California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989).

Hayfield Northern Ry. v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 467 U.S. 622 (1984). See also CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69 (1987) (federal law's broad purpose of protecting shareholders as a group is furthered by state anti-take-over law); Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987) (provision governing veterans' disability benefits protects veterans' families as well as veterans, hence state child-support order resulting in payment out of benefits is not preempted).

Throughout the ups-and-downs of federal labor-law preemption, it remains the rule that the Board remains preeminent and almost exclusive. See, e.g., Wisconsin Dep't of Industry v. Gould, Inc., 475 U.S. 282 (1986) (States may not supplement Board enforcement by debarring from state contracts persons or firms that have violated the NLRA); Golden Gate Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 475 U.S. 608 (1986) (City may not condition taxicab franchise on settlement of strike by set date, since this intrudes into collective-bargaining process protected by NLRA). On the other hand, the NLRA's protection of associational rights is not so strong as to outweigh the Social Security Act's policy permitting States to determine whether to award unemployment benefits to persons voluntarily unemployed as the result of a labor dispute. New York Tel. Co. v. New York Labor Dep't, 440 U.S. 519 (1979); Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471 (1977); Baker v. General Motors Corp., 478 U.S. 621 (1986).

Allen-Bradley Local No. 1111 v. WERB, 315 U.S. 740 (1942).

United Automobile Workers v. WERB, 336 U.S. 245 (1949), overruled by Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. WERC, 427 U.S. 132 (176).

Algoma Plywood Co. v. WERB, 336 U.S. 301 (1949).

Hill v. Florida ex rel. Watson, 325 U.S. 538 (1945). More recently, the Court has held that Hill's premise that the NLRA grants an unqualified right to select union officials has been removed by amendments prohibiting some convicted criminals from holding union office. Partly because the federal disqualification standard was itself dependent upon application of state law, the Court ruled that more stringent state disqualification provisions, also aimed at individuals who had been involved in racketeering and other criminal conduct, were not inconsistent with federal law. Brown v. Hotel Employees, 468 U.S. 491 (1984).

United Automobile Workers v. O'Brien, 339 U.S. 454 (1950); Bus Employees v. WERB, 340 U.S. 383 (1951). See also Bus Employees v. Missouri, 374 U.S. 74 (1963).

Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468 (1955); Garner v. Teamsters Local 776, 346 U.S. 485 (1953); Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York Employment Relations Bd., 330 U.S. 767 (1947). See also Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994) (finding preempted because it stood as an obstacle to the achievement of the purposes of NLRA a practice of a state labor commissioner). Of course, where Congress clearly specifies, the Court has had no difficulty. Thus, in the NLRA, Congress provided, 29 U.S.C. § 164(b), that state laws on the subject could override the federal law on union security arrangements and the Court sustained those laws. Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co., 335 U.S. 525 (1949); AFL v. American Sash & Door Co., 335 U.S. 538 (1949). When Congress in the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.§ 152, Eleventh, provided that the federal law on union security was to override contrary state laws, the Court sustained that determination. Railway Employees' Department v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956). The Court has held that state courts may adjudicate questions relating to the permissibility of particular types of union security arrangements under state law even though the issue involves as well an interpretation of federal law., Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96 (1963).

Garner v. Teamsters Local 776, 346 U.S. 485 (1953); United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62 (1956); Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, 353 U.S. 20 (1957); Construction Laborers v. Curry, 371 U.S. 542 (1963).

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26 (1957).

Guss v. Utah Labor Board, 353 U.S. 1 (1957).

Teamsters Union v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283 (1959).

Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468 (1955).

Guss v. Utah Labor Board, 353 U.S. 1 (1957). The "no-man's land" thus created by the difference between the reach of Congress' commerce power and the NLRB's finite resources was closed by 73 Stat. 541, 29 U.S.C. § 164(c), which authorized the States to assume jurisdiction over disputes which the Board had indicated through promulgation of jurisdictional standards that it would not treat.

359 U.S. 236 (1959).

359 U.S. at 245. The rule is followed in, e.g., Radio & Television Technicians v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, 380 U.S. 255 (1965); Hattiesburg Building & Trades Council v. Broome, 377 U.S. 126 (1964); Longshoremen's Local 1416 v. Ariadne Shipping Co., 397 U.S. 195 (1970); Amalgamated Ass'n of Street Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274 (1971). Cf. Nash v. Florida Industrial Comm., 389 U.S. 235 (1967).

United Automobile Workers v. WERB, 351 U.S. 266 (1956); Youngdahl v. Rainfair, 355 U.S. 131 (1957).

United Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U.S. 634 (1958); United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Constr. Corp., 347 U.S. 656 (1954).

International Ass'n of Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U.S. 617 (1958). (29 of 35)04/04/2006 14:11:47 US Constitution Annotated - Concurrent Federal and State Jurisdiction

Journeymen Local 100 v. Borden, 373 U.S. 690 (1963); Iron Workers Local 207 v. Perko, 373 U.S. 701 (1963). Applying Perko, the Court held that a state court action by a supervisor alleging union interference with his contractual relationship with his employer is preempted by the NLRA. Local 926, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers v. Jones, 460 U.S. 669 (1983).

373 U.S. at 697(Borden), and 705 (Perko).

Amalgamated Ass'n of Street Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274 (1971).

403 U.S. at 296.

383 U.S. 53 (1966).

418 U.S. 264 (1974).

Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290 (1977). Following this case, the Court held that a state court action for misrepresentation and breach of contract, brought by replacement workers promised permanent employment when hired during a strike, was not preempted. The action for breach of contract by replacement workers having no remedies under the NLRA was found to be deeply rooted in local law and of only peripheral concern under the Act. Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (1983). See also Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380 (1986).

436 U.S. 180 (1978).

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 , 244 (1959).

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 , 190-98 (1978).

436 U.S. at 199-207.

61 Stat. 156 (1947), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).

Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502 (1962). The state courts must, however, apply federal law. Local 174, Teamsters Union v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (1962).

Smith v. Evening News Ass'n, 371 U.S. 195 (1962); Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335 (1964); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967).

See the analysis in Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (state tort action for retaliatory discharge for exercising rights under a state workers' compensation law is not preempted by § 301, there being no required interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement).

Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985). See also Int'l Brotherhood of Electric Workers v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851 (1987) (state-law claim that union breached duty to furnish employee a reasonably safe workplace preempted); United Steelworkers of America v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362 (1990) (state-law claim that union was negligent in inspecting a mine, the duty to inspect being created by the collective-bargaining agreement preempted).

Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369(1969); Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. WERC, 427 U.S. 132 (1976); Golden Gate Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 475 U.S. 608 (1986). And, cf. New York Telephone Co. v. New York Labor Dept., 440 U.S. 519 (1979).

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) (upholding a state requirement that health-care plans, including those resulting from collective bargaining, provide minimum benefits for mental-health care).

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886). Rejecting the commerce clause as a basis for congressional enactment of a system of criminal laws for Indians living on reservations, the Court nevertheless sustained the act on the ground that the Federal Government had the obligation and thus the power to protect a weak and dependent people. Cf. United States v. Holiday, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 407 (1866); United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913). This special fiduciary responsibility can also be created by statute. E.g., United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983).

16 Stat. 544, 566, 25 U.S.C. § 71.

E.g., Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dep't, 433 U.S. 165 (1977); Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979); Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981).

McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 , 172 n. 7 (1973). See also Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 , 551 -553 (1974); United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 , 553 -556 (1974); Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 , 376 n. 2 (1976); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 , 142 (1980); Ramah Navajo School Bd. v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 832 , 837 (1982). United States v. Lara , 124 S. Ct. 1628, 1633 (2004).

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 , 142 -143 (1980); Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 832 , 837 -838 (1982). "The two barriers are independent because either, standing alone, can be a sufficient basis for holding state law inapplicable to activity undertaken on the reservation or by tribal members." Id. at 837, (quoting, White Mountain, 448 U.S. at 143).

Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 832 , 838 (1982). See also New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U. S. 324 (1983).

Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering, 467 U.S. 138 (1984) (upholding state-court jurisdiction to hear claims of Native Americans against non-Indians involving transactions that occurred in Indian country). However, attempts by States to retrocede jurisdiction favorable to Native Americans may be held to be preempted. Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering, 476 U. S. 877 (1986).

Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983).

McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 , 165 (1973).

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 , 148 (1973); McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 (1973); Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 (1976); Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976); Washington v. Confederated Colville Tribes, 447 U.S. 134 (1980); Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U.S. 759 (1985). See also Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505 (1991). A discernable easing of the reluctance to find congressional cession is reflected in more recent cases. See County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992).

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 , 148-149 (1973).

White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980); Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 448 U.S. 160 (1980); Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 832 (1982). 1198 490 U.S. 163 (1989).

Held permissible in Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982).

490 U.S. at 185 (distinguishing Bracker and Ramah Navaho School Bd).

County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 , 265 (1992). To be sure, this response was in the context of the reading of statutory texts and giving effect to them, but the unqualified designation is suggestive. For recent tax controversies, see Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114 (1993); Department of Taxation & Finance v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., 512 U.S. 61 (1994); Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450(1995).

E.g., New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983).

31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). See also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831). Under this doctrine, tribes possess sovereign immunity from suit in the same way as the United States and the States do. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 , 58 (1978); United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506 , 512 -513 (1940). The Court has repeatedly rejected arguments to abolish tribal sovereign immunity or at least to curtail it. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505 , 510 (1991).

United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) (inherent sovereign power to punish tribal offenders). But tribes possess no criminal authority over non Indians. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978). And see Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) (tribe has no criminal jurisdiction over non- tribal Indians who commit crimes on the reservation; jurisdiction over members rests on consent of the self-governed, and absence of consent defeats jurisdiction). Compare California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U. S. 202 (1987) (state regulation of on-reservation bingo is preempted as basically civil/regulatory rather than criminal/prohibitory), with Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 492 U.S. 408 (1989) (extensive ownership of land within "open areas" of reservation by non- members of tribe precludes application of tribal zoning within such areas). And see Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994). Among the fundamental attributes of sovereignty which a tribe possesses unless divested of it by federal law is the power to tax non-Indians entering the reservation to engage in economic activities. Washington v. Confederated Colville Tribes, 447 U.S. 134 (1980); Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982).

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 , 381 (1886); United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 , 323 (1978).

United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 , 323 (1978). See South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) (abrogation of Indian treaty rights and reduction of sovereignty). Congress may also remove restrictions on tribal sovereignty. The Court has held that, absent authority from federal statute or treaty, tribes possess no criminal authority over non-Indians. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978). The Court also held, in Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), that a tribe has no criminal jurisdiction over non- tribal Indians who commit crimes on the reservation; jurisdiction over members rests on consent of the self-governed, and absence of consent defeats jurisdiction. Congress, however, quickly enacted a statute recognizing inherent authority of tribal governments to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non- member Indians, and the Court upheld congressional authority to do so in United States v. Lara , 124 S. Ct. 1628 (2004).

470 U.S. 226 (1985).

1 Stat. 379 (1793).

470 U.S. at 246-48.

470 U.S. at 255, 257 (Justice Stevens).

"The power of Congress over Indian affairs may be of a plenary nature; but it is not absolute." United States v. Alcea Bank of Tillamooks, 329 U.S. 40 , 54 (1946) (plurality opinion), (quoted with approval in Delaware Tribal Business Comm. v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73 , 84 (1977)).

Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 , 555 (1974). The Court applied the standard to uphold a statutory classification that favored Indians over non- Indians. But in Delaware Tribal Business Comm. v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73 (1977), the same standard was used to sustain a classification that disfavored, although inadvertently, one group of Indians as against other groups. While Indian tribes are unconstrained by federal or state constitutional provisions, Congress has legislated a "bill of rights" statute covering them. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978).

United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371 (1980). See also Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 , 472 (1984) (there must be "substantial and compelling evidence of congressional intention to diminish Indian lands" before the Court will hold that a statute removed land from a reservation).

Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 , 162 (1892). The Naturalization of Aliens, infra.

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).

60 U.S. at 417, 419.

Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 , 311 (1915).

Chirac v. Chirac, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 259 , 269 (1817); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 701 (1898).

The first naturalization act, 1 Stat. 103 (1790), so provided. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421. In Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910), it was held that Congress may provide for the punishment of false swearing in the proceedings in state courts.

Spragins v. Houghton, 3 Ill. 377 (1840); Stewart v. Foster, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 110 (1809). See K. PORTER, A HISTORY OF SUFFRAGE IN THE UNITED STATES ch. 5 (1918).

United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605 , 615 (1931); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 , 707 -708 (1893). A caveat to this statement is that with regard to persons naturalized in the United States the qualification may only be a condition precedent and not a condition subsequent, Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), whereas persons born abroad who are made citizens at birth by statute if one or both of their parents are citizens are subject to conditions subsequent. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). 1222 1 Stat. 103 (1790).

Act of July 14, 1870, § 7, 16 Stat. 254, 256.

Act of May 6, 1882, § 1, 22 Stat. 58.

Cf. Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922); United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923); Toyota v. United States, 268 U.S. 402 (1925); Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (1934). The Court refused to review the only case in which the constitutional issue was raised and rejected. Kharaiti Ram Samras v. United States, 125 F. 2d 879 (C.A. 9, 1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 634 (1942).

The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 570, empowered the President to deport any alien he found dangerous to the peace and safety of the Nation. In 1903, Congress provided for denial of naturalization and for deportation for mere belief in certain doctrines, i.e., anarchy. Act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1214. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904). The range of forbidden views was broadened in 1918. Act of October 15, 1918, § 1, 40 Stat. 1012. The present law is found in 8 U.S.C. § 1424 and is discussed in

E.g., 77 Stat. 5 (1963) (making Sir Winston Churchill an "honorary citizen of the United States.").

Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892); Contzen v. United States, 179 U.S. 191 (1900).

Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 , 164 , 168-169 (1892).

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 702 (1898).

66 Stat. 235, 8 U.S.C. § 1401.

§ 301(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1).

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

Compare Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964); Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967). It will be noted that in practically all cases persons statutorily made citizens at birth will be dual nationals, having the citizenship of the country where they were born. Congress has never required a citizen having dual nationality to elect at some point one and forsake the other but it has enacted several restrictive statutes limiting the actions of dual nationals which have occasioned much litigation. E.g., Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491 (1950); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963); Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

Cf. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 , 836 (1971); Kennedy v. Mendoza- Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963); Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 , 58 -62 (1958).

§ 311, 66 Stat. 239 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 1422.

§ 313(a), 66 Stat. 240 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 1424(a). Whether "mere" membership is sufficient to constitute grounds for ineligibility is unclear. Compare Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 (1954), with Berenyi v. Immigration Director, 385 U.S. 630 (1967).

§ 313(c), 66 Stat. 241 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 1424(c).

§ 316(a)(3), 66 Stat. 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3).

§ 101(f)(1), 66 Stat. 172, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(1).

§ 101(f)(2), 66 Stat. 172, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(2).

§ 212(a)(11), 66 Stat. 182, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(11).

§ 101(f)(4) and (5), 66 Stat. 172, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(4) and (5).

§ 101(f)(7) and (8), 66 Stat. 172, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7) and (8).

§ 212(a)(4), 66 Stat. 182, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4), barring aliens afflicted with "psychopathic personality," a congressional euphemism including homosexuality. Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 387 U.S. 118 (1967).

§ 337(a), 66 Stat. 258 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 1448(a). In United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), and United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931), a divided Court held that clauses (3) and (4) of the oath, as then prescribed, required the candidate for naturalization to be willing to bear arms for the United States, thus disqualifying conscientious objectors. These cases were overturned, purely as a matter of statutory interpretation by Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946), and Congress codified the result, 64 Stat. 1017 (1950), as it now appears in the cited statute.

§ 340(a), 66 Stat. 260 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (badly fractured Court opinion dealing with the statutory requirements in a denaturalization proceeding under this section). And see Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912). Congress has imposed no time bar applicable to proceedings to revoke citizenship, so that many years after naturalization has taken place a naturalized citizen remains subject to divestment upon proof of fraud. Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961); Polites v. United States, 364 U.S. 426 (1960); Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946); Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U. S. 490 (1981).

340(c), 66 Stat. 261 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 1451(c). The time period had previously been five years.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 737 , 827 (1824). One must be aware, however, that this language does not appear in any case having to do with citizenship or naturalization or the rights of naturalized citizens and its force may be therefore questioned. Compare Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 , 261 (1967) (Justice Black for the Court: "a mature and well- considered dictum . . ."), with id. at 275-276 (Justice Harlan dissenting: the dictum, "cannot have been intended to reach the question of citizenship."). The issue in Osborn was the right of the Bank to sue in federal court. Osborn had argued that the fact that the bank was chartered under the laws of the United States did not make any legal issue involving the bank one arising under the laws of the United States for jurisdictional purposes; to argue the contrary, Osborn contended, was like suggesting that the fact that persons were naturalized under the laws of Congress meant such persons had an automatic right to sue in federal courts, unlike natural-born citizens. The quoted language of Marshall's rejects this attempted analogy.

328 U.S. 65 4, 658 (1946).

Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912); Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946); Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961).

See 8 U.S.C. § 1451(c).

231 U.S. 9 (1913). The provision has been modified to reduce the period to one year. 8 U.S.C. § 1451(d).

377 U.S. 163 (1964).

377 U.S. at 165.

While there is no equal protection clause specifically applicable to the Federal Government, it is established that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids discrimination in much the same manner as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 , 168 -169 (1964).

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).

401 U.S. 815 (1971).

401 U.S. at 835-36.

At least, there is a difference so long as Afroyim prevents Congress from making expatriation the consequence of certain acts when done by natural born citizens as well.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). The qualifying phrase "absent a treaty or statute . . ." is error now, so long as Afroyim remains in effect. But note Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 , 832 -833 (1971).

Governeur v. Robertson, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 332 (1826); Osterman v. Baldwin, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 116 (1867); Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U.S. 505 (1894).

Shanks v. DuPont, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 242 , 246 (1830).

2 J. KENT, COMMENTARIES 49-50 (1827).


Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 223. While the Act's preamble rhetorically proclaims the "natural and inherent right of all people" to expatriate themselves, its title is "An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States" and its operative parts are concerned with that subject. It has long been taken, however, as a general proclamation of United States recognition of the right of United States citizens to expatriate themselves. Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 , 309 (1915); Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 , 135 -136 (1952). Cf. Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491 , 498 n. 11 (1950).

The Enrollment Act of March 3, 1865, § 21, 13 Stat. 487, 490. The language of the section appears more consistent with a deprivation of civil rights than of citizenship. Note also that § 14 of the Wade-Davis Bill, pocket- vetoed by President Lincoln, specifically provided that any person holding office in the Confederate Government "is hereby declared not to be a citizen of the United States." 6 J. RICHARDSON, MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 223 (1899).

Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1169.


58 Stat. 746 (1944).

68 Stat. 1146 (1954).

34 Stat. 1228 (1907), repealed by 42 Stat. 1021 (1922).

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 , 334 (1939).

Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 , 309 , 311-312 (1915); Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491 , 506 (1950).

34 Stat. 1228 (1907).

Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915).

See generally 8 U.S.C. §§ 1481-1489. Among the acts for which loss of citizenship is prescribed are (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, (2) taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state, (3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state without authorization and with consequent acquisition of foreign nationality, (4) assuming public office under the government of a foreign state for which only nationals of that state are eligible, (5) voting in an election in a foreign state, (6) formally renouncing citizenship before a United states foreign service officer abroad, (7) formally renewing citizenship within the United States in time of war, subject to approval of the Attorney General, (8) being convicted and discharged from the armed services for desertion in wartime, (9) being convicted of treason or of an attempt to overthrow forcibly the Government of the United States, (10) fleeing or remaining outside the United States in wartime or a proclaimed emergency in order to evade military service, and (11) residing abroad if a naturalized citizen, subject to certain exceptions, for three years in the country of his birth or in which he was formerly a national or for five years in any other foreign state. Several of these sections have been declared unconstitutional, as explained in the text.

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958). For the Court, Justice Frankfurter sustained expatriation as a necessary exercise of the congressional power to regulate the foreign relations of the United States to prevent the embarrassment and potential for trouble inherent in our nationals voting in foreign elections. Justice Whittaker dissented because he saw no problem of embarrassment or potential trouble if the foreign state permitted aliens or dual nationals to vote. Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black and Douglas denied that expatriation is within Congress' power to prescribe for an act, like voting, which is not necessarily a sign of intention to relinquish citizenship.

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958). Chief Justice Warren for himself and three Justices held that expatriation for desertion was a cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. Justice Brennan concurred on the ground of a lack of the requisite relationship between the statute and Congress' war powers. For the four dissenters, Justice Frankfurter argued that Congress had power to impose loss of citizenship for certain activity and that there was a rational nexus between refusal to perform a duty of citizenship and deprivation of citizenship. Justice Frankfurter denied that the penalty was cruel and unusual punishment and denied that it was punishment at all "in any valid constitutional sense." Id. at 124.

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963). For the Court Justice Goldberg held that penal expatriation effectuated solely by administrative determination violated due process because of the absence of procedural safeguards. Justices Black and Douglas continued to insist Congress could not deprive a citizen of his nationality at all. Justice Harlan for the dissenters thought the statute a valid exercise of Congress' war powers but the four dissenters divided two-to-two on the validity of a presumption spelled out in the statute.

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).

387 U.S. 253 (1967).

Justice Harlan, for himself and Justices Clark, Stewart, and White, argued in dissent that there was no evidence that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment had at all the intention ascribed to them by the majority. He would have found in Afroyim's voluntary act of voting in a foreign election a voluntary renunciation of United States citizenship. 387 U.S. at 268.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). The three remaining Afroyim dissenters plus Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun made up the majority, the three remaining Justices of the Afroyim majority plus Justice Marshall made up the dissenters. The continuing vitality of Afroyim was assumed in Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U. S. 252 (1980), in which a divided Court upheld a congressionally-imposed standard of proof, preponderance of evidence, by which to determine whether one had by his actions renounced his citizenship.

Chinese Exclusion Case (Chae Chan Ping v. United States), 130 U.S. 581 , 603 , 604 (1889); see also Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 , 705 (1893); The Japanese Immigrant Case (Yamataya v. Fisher), 189 U.S. 86 (1903); United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904); Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585 (1913); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753 (1972). In Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522 , 530 -531 (1954), Justice Frankfurter for the Court wrote: "[M]uch could be said for the view, were we writing on a clean slate, that the Due Process Clause qualifies the scope of political discretion heretofore recognized as belonging to Congress in regulating the entry and deportation of aliens.... But the slate is not clean. As to the extent of the power of Congress under review, there is not merely 'a page of history,' . . . but a whole volume.... [T]hat the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government." Although the issue of racial discrimination was before the Court in Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (1985), in the context of parole for undocumented aliens, the Court avoided it, holding that statutes and regulations precluded INS considerations of race or national origin. Justices Marshall and Brennan, in dissent, argued for reconsideration of the long line of precedents and for constitutional restrictions on the Government. Id. at 858. That there exists some limitation upon exclusion of aliens is one permissible interpretation of Reagan v. Abourezk, 484 U.S. 1 (1987), affg. by an equally divided Court, 785 F.2d 1043 (D.C.Cir. 1986), holding that mere membership in the Communist Party could not be used to exclude an alien on the ground that his activities might be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.

Act of June 25, 1798, 1 Stat. 570. The Act was part of the Alien and Sedition Laws and authorized the expulsion of any alien the President deemed dangerous.

Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 477.

22 Stat. 214 (1882) (excluding idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons likely to become public charges); 23 Stat. 332 (1885), and 24 Stat. 414 (1887) (regulating importing cheap foreign labor); 26 Stat. 1084 (1891) (persons suffering from certain diseases, those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, paupers, and polygamists); 32 Stat. 1213 (1903) (epileptics, insane persons, professional beggars, and anarchists); 34 Stat. 898 (1907) (feeble- minded, children unaccompanied by parents, persons suffering with tuberculosis, and women coming to the United States for prostitution or other immoral purposes).

Act of May 6, 1882, 22 Stat. 58.

Act of December 17, 1943, 57 Stat. 600.

Act of May 26, 1924, 43 Stat. 153.

Act of October 3, 1965, P.L. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911.

Act of June 27, 1952, P.L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. as amended.

The list of excludable aliens may be found at 8 U.S.C. § 1182. The list has been modified and classified by category in recent amendments.

338 U.S. 537(1950). See also Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953), in which the Court majority upheld the Government's power to exclude on the basis of information it would not disclose a permanent resident who had gone abroad for about nineteen months and was seeking to return on a new visa. But the Court will frequently read the applicable statutes and regulations strictly against the Government for the benefit of persons sought to be excluded. Cf. Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U.S. 388 (1947); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953); Rosenburg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963).

Under the War Brides Act of 1945, 59 Stat. 659.

338 U.S. at 543.

E.g., Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214 (1966).

Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 , 419 (1948); De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 , 358 n.6 (1976); Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 , 12 -13 (1982). See also Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 , 66 (1941); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 , 376 -380 (1971).

E.g., Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175 (1915); Ohio ex rel. Clarke v. Deckebach, 274 U.S. 392 (1927); Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 , 646 - 649 (1973); De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976); Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982).

Purporting to enforce this distinction, the Court voided a statute, which, in prohibiting the importation of "any alien woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution," provided that whoever should keep for the purpose of prostitution "any alien woman or girl within three years after she shall have entered the United States" should be deemed guilty of a felony. Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138 (1909).

54 Stat. 670, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1306.

See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 , 69 -70 (1941).

312 U.S. 52 (1941).

312 U.S. at 68. But see De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), in which the Court upheld a state law prohibiting an employer from hiring aliens not entitled to lawful residence in the United States. The Court wrote that States may enact legislation touching upon aliens coexistent with federal laws, under regular preemption standards, unless the nature of the regulated subject matter precludes the conclusion or unless Congress has unmistakably ordained the impermissibility of state law.

Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971). See also Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973); In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973); Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982).

8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(8), 1182(a)(15), 1251(a)(8).

See 42 U.S.C. § 1981, applied in Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 , 419 n.7 (1948).

See United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 , 544 (1950), where the Court noted that "[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned."

Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 U.S. 405 (1960).

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , 229 (1960).

Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302 (1955).

Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 , 540 (1952).

Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33 , 49 (1950). See discussion of aliens' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, Aliens: Entry and Deportation.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2).

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3).

Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952). In Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993), the Court upheld an INS regulation providing for the ongoing detention of juveniles apprehended on suspicion of being deportable, unless parents, close relatives, or legal guardians were available to accept release, as against a substantive due process attack.

54 Stat. 670. For existing statutory provisions as to deportation, see 8 U.S. C. § 1251 et seq.

Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952).

8 U.S.C. § 1252(e).

United States v. Spector, 343 U.S. 169 (1952).

Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 , 488 (1999).

Adams v. Storey, 1 Fed. Cas. 141, 142 (No. 66) (C.C.D.N.Y. 1817).

2 Stat. 19 (1800).


186 U.S. 181 (1902).

Continental Bank v. Rock Island Ry., 294 U.S. 648 , 670 (1935).

United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938), distinguishing Ashton v. Cameron County Dist., 298 U.S. 513 (1936).

Perry v. Commerce Loan Co., 383 U.S. 392 (1966).

In re Reiman, 20 Fed. Cas. 490 (No. 11,673) (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1874), cited with approval in Continental Bank v. Rock Island Ry., 294 U.S. 648 , 672 (1935).

Continental Bank v. Rock Island Ry., 294 U.S. 648 (1935).

Wright v. Vinton Branch, 300 U.S. 440 (1937); Adair v. Bank of America Ass'n, 303 U.S. 350 (1938).

Wright v. Union Central Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 502 (1938).

Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 (1966).

Bank of Marin v. England, 385 U.S. 99 , 103 (1966).

382 U.S. 266 (1965). Cf. United States v. Vermont, 337 U.S. 351 (1964).

Act of July 5, 1966, 80 Stat. 269, 11 U.S.C. § 501, repealed.

382 U.S., 271-72.

Reading Co. v. Brown, 391 U.S. 471 (1968).

Joint Industrial Bd. v. United States, 391 U.S. 224 (1968).

Nicholas v. United States, 384 U.S. 678 (1966).

294 U.S. 648 (1935).

294 U.S. at 671.

11 U.S.C. § 344.

Louisville Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 , 589 , 602 (1935).

Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 , 327 -340 (1966).

Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. Wilcox Bldg. Corp., 302 U.S. 120 (1937).

In re Klein, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 277 (1843); Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181 (1902).

Ashton v. Cameron County Dist., 298 U.S. 513 (1936). See also United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938).

United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938).

Stellwagon v. Clum, 245 U.S. 605 (1918); Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181 , 190 (1902).

Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982). And see Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989) (Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in bankruptcy cases).

Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181 , 184 1902).

Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122 , 199(1819); Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 , 368 (1827).

Tua v. Carriere, 117 U.S. 201 (1886); Butler v. Goreley, 146 U.S. 303 , 314 (1892).

Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122 (1819).

Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 , 368 (1827); Denny v. Bennett, 128 U.S. 489 , 498 (1888); Brown v. Smart, 145 U.S. 454 (1892).

In re Watts and Sachs, 190 U.S. 1 , 27 (1903); International Shoe Co. v. Pinkus, 278 U.S. 261 , 264 (1929).

International Shoe Co. v. Pinkus, 278 U.S. 261 , 265 (1929).

Kalb v. Feurerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940).

4 Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U.S. 274 (1985). Compare Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U. S. 36 (1986) (restitution obligations imposed as conditions of probation in state criminal actions are nondischargeable in proceedings under chapter 7), with Pennsylvania Dep't of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552 (1990) (restitution obligations imposed as condition of probation in state criminal actions are dischargeable in proceedings under chapter 13).

Stellwagon v. Clum, 245 U.S. 605 , 615 (1918).

Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33 (1941); Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153 (1962); Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971).

Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33 , 37 (1941); Kesler v. Department of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153 , 169 -174 (1962).

Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 , 644 -648, 651-654 (1971). The dissenters, Justice Blackmun for himself and Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harlan and Stewart, argued, in line with the Reitz and Kesler majorities, that the provision at issue was merely an attempt to assure driving competence and care on the part of its citizens and had only tangential effect upon bankruptcy.

New York v. Irving Trust Co., 288 U.S. 329 (1933).

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).

Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533 (1869).

75 U.S. at 548.

National Bank v. United States, 101 U.S. 1 (1880).

Nortz v. United States, 249 U.S. 317 (1935).

Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee), 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 , 549 (1871); Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 , 449 (1884).

Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee), 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1871).

Norman v. Baltimore & O. R.R., 294 U.S. 240 (1935).

Ling Su Fan v. United States, 218 U.S. 302 (1910).

United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 How.), 560, 568 (1850).

Fox v. Ohio, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 410 (1847).

United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 560 , 568 (1850).


Baender v. Barnett, 255 U.S. 224 (1921).

Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee), 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 , 536 (1871).

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 407 (1819); Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 737 , 861 (1824); Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29 , 33 (1875); Smith v. Kansas City Title Co., 255 U.S. 180 , 208 (1921).

Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee), 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 , 540 -547 (1871).

Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 , 353 (1935).

294 U.S. at 361.

Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663 (1962).

United States v. Railroad Bridge Co., 27 Fed. Cas. 686 (No. 16,114) (C.C. N.D. Ill. 1855).

Searight v. Stokes, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 151 , 166 (1845).

91 U.S. 367 (1876).

Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 , 732 (1878). See United States Postal Serv. v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assn's, 453 U.S. 114 (1981), in which the Court sustained the constitutionality of a law making it unlawful for persons to use, without payment of a fee (postage), a letterbox which has been designated an "authorized depository" of the mail by the Postal Service.

Searight v. Stokes, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 151 , 169 (1845).

In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 , 599 (1895).

Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., 3, 10, 298 (1835).

Bowman v. Chicago & Nw. Ry., 125 U.S. 465 (1888); Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890).

96 U.S. 727 (1878).

96 U.S. at 732.

Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497 (1904), followed in Donaldson v. Read Magazine, 333 U.S. 178 (1948).

194 U.S. at 506.

Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan, 229 U.S. 288 (1913).

229 U.S. at 316.

United States ex rel. Milwaukee Publishing Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921). See also Hannegan v. Esquire, 327 U.S. 146 (1946), denying the Post Office the right to exclude Esquire Magazine from the mails on grounds of the poor taste and vulgarity of its contents.

381 U.S. 301 (1965).

381 U.S. at 305, quoting Justice Holmes in United States ex rel. Milwaukee Publishing Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 , 437 (1921) (dissenting opinion): "The United States may give up the Post Office when it sees fit, but while it carries it on the use of the mails is almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues... ." And see Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 , 416 (1971) (quoting same language). But for a different perspective on the meaning and application of the Holmes language, see United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assn's, 453 U.S. 114 , 127 n.5 (1981), although there too the Court observed that the postal power may not be used in a manner that abridges freedom of speech or press. Id. at 126. Notice, too, that first-class mail is protected against opening and inspection, except in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 , 733 (1878); United States v. van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249 (1970). But see United States v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606 (1977) (border search).

Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 , 306 -307 (1965). And see id. at 308 (concurring opinion). Note that this was the first federal statute ever voided as in conflict with the First Amendment.

Rowan v. Post Office Department, 397 U.S. 728 (1970).

Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 (1971).

49 Stat. 803, 812, 813, 15 U.S.C. §§ 79d, 79e. 1410 Electric Bond Co. v. SEC, 303 U.S. 419 (1938).

303 U.S. at 442.

Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U.S. 1 (1878).

Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Illinois, 163 U.S. 142 (1896).

Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 (1897).

Price v. Pennsylvania R.R., 113 U.S. 218 (1895); Martin v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R., 203 U.S. 284 (1906).

Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945).

United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 482 (1869).

Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920).

Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 1 , 17 , 18 (1829).

Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 , 656 , 658 (1834).

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 5 , 9 (1966).

Kendall v. Winsor, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 322 , 328 (1859); A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (publisher of telephone directory, consisting of white pages and yellow pages, not entitled to copyright in white pages, which are only compilations). "To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author....

Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. (9 Cr.) 199 (1815); Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U. S. (14 How.) 539 , 548 (1852); Bloomer v. Millinger, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 340 , 350 (1864); Eunson v. Dodge, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 414 , 416 (1873).

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 , 205(2003) (quoting Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 , 429 (1984)).

537 U.S. at 204.

The Court in Eldred upheld extension of the term of existing copyrights from life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years. While the more general issue was not raised, the Court opined that this length of time, extendable by Congress, was "clearly" not a regime of "perpetual" copyrights. The only two dissenting Justices, Stevens and Breyer, challenged this assertion.

Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. (9 Cr.) 199 (1815); Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U. S. (14 How.) 539 , 548 (1852); Bloomer v. Millinger, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 340 , 350 (1864); Eunson v. Dodge, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 414 , 416 (1873).

Seymour v. Osborne, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 516 , 549 (1871). Cf. Collar Company v. Van Dusen, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 530 , 563 (1875); Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U.S. 347 , 356 (1876).

Smith v. Nichols, 89 U.S. (21 Wall.) 112 , 118 (1875).

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 , 507(1874); Clark Thread Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co., 140 U.S. 481 , 489 (1891).

Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Co., 333 U.S. 127 , 130 (1948). Cf. Dow Co. v. Halliburton Co., 324 U.S. 320 (1945); Cuno Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 , 89 (1941).

Sinclair Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327 , 330 (1945); Marconi Wireless Co. v. United States, 320 U.S. 1 (1943).

Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 151 U.S. 139 (1894); Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consol. Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428 (1911).

A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950). An interesting concurring opinion was filed by Justice Douglas for himself and Justice Black: "It is not enough," says Justice Douglas, "that an article is new and useful. The Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. Patents serve a higher end-the advancement of science. An invention need not be as startling as an atomic bomb to be patentable. But it has to be of such quality and distinction that masters of the scientific field in which it falls will recognize it as an advance." Id. at 154-155. He then quotes the following from an opinion of Justice Bradley's given 70 years ago: "It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufacturers. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith. (Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192 , 200 (1882))." at 155. The opinion concludes: "The attempts through the years to get a broader, looser conception of patents than the Constitution contemplates have been persistent. The Patent Office, like most administrative agencies, has looked with favor on the opportunity which the exercise of discretion affords to expand its own jurisdiction. And so it has placed a host of gadgets under the armour of patents-gadgets that obviously have had no place in the constitutional scheme of advancing scientific knowledge. A few that have reached this Court show the pressure to extend monopoly to the simplest of devices: [listing instances]." Id. at 156-58.

"Inventive genius"-Justice Hunt in Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U.S. 347 , 357 (1875); "Genius or invention"-Chief Justice Fuller in Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674 , 681 (1893); "Intuitive genius"-Justice Brown in Potts v. Creager, 155 U.S. 597 , 607 (1895); "Inventive genius"-Justice Stone in Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U.S. 177 , 185 (1925); "Inventive genius"-Justice Roberts in Mantle Lamp Co. v. Aluminum Co., 301 U.S. 544 , 546 (1937); "the flash of creative genius, not merely the skill of the calling"- Justice Douglas in Cuno Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 , 91 (1941).

Act of February 21, 1793, ch. 11, 1 Stat. 318. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 3 -4, 10 (1966).

35 U.S.C. § 103.

E.g., A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950); Jungerson v. Ostby & Barton Co., 335 U.S. 560 (1949); and Cuno Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 (1941).

52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1850).

383 U.S. 1 (1966).

383 U.S. at 6 (first emphasis added, second emphasis by Court). For a thorough discussion, see Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U. S. 141 , 146 -152 (1989).

Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969). "The question of invention must turn on whether the combination supplied the key requirement." Id. at 60. But the Court also appeared to apply the test of nonobviousness in the same decision: "We conclude that the combination was reasonably obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art." Id. See also McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419 , 427 (1891), where, speaking of the use of "invention" as a standard of patentability the Court said: "The truth is the word cannot be defined in such manner as to afford any substantial aid in determining whether a particular device involves an exercise of the inventive faculty or not."

A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950); Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U.S. 354 , 358 (1884). In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 348 (1996), the Court held that the interpretation of terms in a patent claim is a matter of law reserved entirely for the court. The Seventh Amendment does not require that such issues be tried to a jury.

Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 , 512 (1818).

United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576 , 586 -589 (1899). See also Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe, 112 U.S. 50 (1884).

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 18 (1966).

In Jennings v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 410, 412 (D.D.C. 1966), District Judge Holtzoff suggested that a system of remand be adopted.

Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 , 660 (1834); Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 (1899). The doctrine of common-law copyright was long statutorily preserved for unpublished works, but the 1976 revision of the federal copyright law abrogated the distinction between published and unpublished works, substituting a single federal system for that existing since the first copyright law in 1790. 17 U.S.C. § 301.

Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 , 662 (1834); Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. (9 Cr.) 199 (1815). A major limitation of copyright law is that "fair use" of a copyrighted work is not an infringement. Fair use can involve such things as citation for the use of criticism and reproduction for classroom purposes, but it may not supersede the use of the original work. See Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (an unauthorized 300 to 400 word excerpt, published as a news "scoop" of the authorized prepublication excerpt of former President Ford's memoirs and substantially affecting the potential market for the authorized version, was not a fair use within the meaning of § 107 of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 107). For fair use in the context of a song parody, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

464 U.S. 41 7, 431 (1984).

Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55 (1911). For other problems arising because of technological and electronic advancement see, e.g., Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 , 105 (1880).

Stevens v. Gladding, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 447 (1855).

Ager v. Murray, 105 U.S. 126 (1882).

James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356 , 358 (1882). See also United States v. Burns, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 246 , 252 (1871); Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U.S. 225 , 234 (1877); Hollister v. Benedict Manufacturing Co., 113 U.S. 59 , 67 (1885); United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262 , 271 (1888); Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10 , 16 (1896).

McClurg v. Kingsland, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 202 , 206 (1843).

Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 539 , 553 (1852).

See Motion Picture Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917); Morton Salt Co. v. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942); United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942); United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952), where the Justices divided 6 to 3 as to the significance for the case of certain leading precedents; and Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965).

Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 (1879).

Allen v. Riley, 203 U.S. 347 (1906); John Woods & Sons v. Carl, 203 U. S. 358 (1906); Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union County Bank, 207 U.S. 251 (1907).

Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932), overruling Long v. Rockwood, 277 U.S. 142 (1928).

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234 (1964).

412 U.S. 546 (1973). Informing the decisions were different judicial attitudes with respect to the preclusion of the States from acting in fields covered by the patent and copyright clauses, whether Congress had or had not acted. The latter case recognized permissible state interests, id. at 552-560, whereas the former intimated that congressional power was exclusive. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 , 228 -31 (1964).

In the 1976 revision of the copyright law, Congress broadly preempted, with narrow exceptions, all state laws bearing on material subject to copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 301. The legislative history makes clear Congress' intention to overturn Goldstein and "to preempt and abolish any rights under the common law or statutes of a state that are equivalent to copyright and that extend to works coming within the scope of the federal copyright law." H. Rep. No. 94- 1476, 94th Congress, 2d sess. (1976), 130. The statute preserves state tape piracy and similar laws as to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, until February 15, 2047.

Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974). See also Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257 (1979).

489 U.S. 141 (1989).

489 U.S. at 156.

489 U.S. at 166. As examples of state regulation that might be permissible, the Court referred to unfair competition, trademark, trade dress, and trade secrets laws. Perhaps by way of distinguishing Sears and Compco, both of which invalidated use of unfair competition laws, the Court suggested that prevention of "consumer confusion" is a permissible state goal that can be served in some instances by application of such laws. Id. at 154.

489 U.S. at 156 (emphasis supplied).

489 U.S. at 158.

100 U.S. 82 (1879).

100 U.S. at 94.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Saroney, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).

Bleisten v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251 (1903).


19 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 315, 361 (1912); 20 id. at 762; 21 id. at 1136-37, 1158.

Article IX.


Id. at 316.

United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153 , 160 , 162 (1820). See also The Marianna Flora, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 1 , 40 -41 (1826); United States v. Brig Malek Abhel, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 210 , 232 (1844).

317 U.S. 1, 27 (1942).

317 U.S. at 28.

United States v. Arjona, 120 U.S. 479 , 487 , 488 (1887).

United States v. Flores, 3 F. Supp. 134 (E.D. Pa. 1932).

United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137 , 149 -150 (1933).

United States v. Furlong, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 184 , 200 (1820).

THE FEDERALIST, No. 23 (J. Cooke ed. 1937), 146-51.

Penhallow v. Doane, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 53 (1795).

17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).

17 U.S. at 407. (Emphasis supplied.)

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 , 139 (1866) (dissenting opinion); see also Miller v. United States, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 268 , 305 (1871); and United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605 , 622 (1931).

CONG. GLOBE, 37th Congress, 1st Sess., App. 1 (1861).

Hamilton v. Dillin, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 73 , 86 (1875).

Northern Pac. Ry. v. North Dakota ex rel. Langer, 250 U.S. 135 , 149 (1919).

Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934).

Northern Pac. Ry. v. North Dakota ex rel. Langer, 250 U.S. 135 , 149 (1919).

299 U.S. 304 (1936).

299 U.S. at 316, 318. On the controversy respecting Curtiss-Wright, see The Curtiss-Wright Case, infra.

334 U.S. 742 (1948).

334 U.S. at 757-58.

334 U.S. at 755 n.3.


Mr. Butler favored "vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it." Id. at 318.

Mr. Pinkney thought the House was too numerous for such deliberations but that the Senate would be more capable of a proper resolution and more acquainted with foreign affairs. Additionally, with the States equally represented in the Senate, the interests of all would be safeguarded. Id.

Hamilton's plan provided that the President was "to make war or peace, with the advice of the senate . . ." 1 id. at 300.

2 id., 318-319. In THE FEDERALIST, No. 69 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 465, Hamilton notes: "[T]he President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies,-all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." (Emphasis in original). And see id. at No. 26, 164-171. Cf. C. BERDAHL, WAR POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE IN THE UNITED STATES ch. V (1921).

THE FEDERALIST, No. 69 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 464-465, 470. During the Convention, Gerry remarked that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war." 2 M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 318 (rev. ed. 1937).

The Articles of Confederation vested powers with regard to foreign relations in the Congress.

2 M. FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 318- 319 (rev. ed. 1937).

Jointly introducing the amendment to substitute "declare" for "make," Madison and Gerry noted the change would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id. at 318.

Connecticut originally voted against the amendment to substitute "declare" for "make" but "on the remark by Mr. King that 'make' war might be understood to 'conduct' it which was an Executive function, Mr. Ellsworth gave up his opposition, and the vote of Connecticut was changed... ." Id. at 319. The contemporary and subsequent judicial interpretation was to the understanding set out in the text. Cf. Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. ()1 Cr., 1, 28 (1801) (Chief Justice Marshall: "The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body alone can be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry."); Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 , 139 (1866).

MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 326, 327 (J. Richardson ed., 1896).

7 WORKS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 746-747 (J. Hamilton ed., 1851).

2 Stat. 129, 130 (1802) (emphasis supplied).

Of course, Congress need not declare war in the all-out sense; it may provide for a limited war which, it may be, the 1802 statute recognized. Cf. Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 37 (1800).

The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Bl.) 635 (1863).

12 Stat. 326 (1861).

The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Bl.) 635, 669 (1863).

67 U.S. at 682.

The Protector, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 700 , 702 (1872).

The controversy, not susceptible of definitive resolution in any event, was stilled for the moment, when in 1973 Congress set a cut-off date for United States military activities in Indochina, P.L. 93-52, 108, 87 Stat. 134, and subsequently, over the President's veto, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, providing a framework for the assertion of congressional and presidential powers in the use of military force. P.L. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548.

In Atlee v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 911 (1973), aff'g. 347 F. Supp. 689 (E.D. Pa., 1982), the Court summarily affirmed a three-judge court's dismissal of a suit challenging the constitutionality of United States activities in Vietnam on political question grounds. The action constituted approval on the merits of the dismissal, but it did not necessarily approve the lower court's grounds. See also Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886 (1970); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1304 , 1316 , 1321 (1973) (actions of individual justices on motions for stays). The Court simply denied certiorari in all cases on its discretionary docket.

E.g., Velvel v. Johnson, 287 F. Supp. 846 (D.Kan. 1968), aff'd sub nom. Velvel v. Nixon, 415 F.2d 236 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1042 (1970); Luftig v. McNamara, 252 F. Supp. 819 (D.D.C. 1966), aff'd 373 F.2d 664 (C.A.D.C. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 945 (1968); Mora v. McNamara, 387 F.2d 862 (D.C., 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 934 (1968); Orlando v. Laird, 317 F. Supp. 1013 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), and Berk v. Laird, 317 F. Supp. 715 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), consolidated and aff'd, 443 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 869 (1971); Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1971); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir. 1973) cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936 (1974); Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

For further discussion, see section on President's commander-in-chief powers.

W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 263 (St. G. Tucker ed., 1803).


25 Ops. Atty. Gen. 105, 108 (1904).

40 Ops. Atty. Gen. 555 (1948).

Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 , 380 (1918); Cox v. Wood, 247 U.S. 3 (1918).

245 U.S. at 385.

245 U.S. at 386-88. The measure was upheld by a state court. Kneedler v. Lane, 45 Pa. St. 238 (1863).

Act of May 18, 1917, ch. 15, 40 Stat. 76.

Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 , 381 , 382 (1918).

Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 , 333 (1916).

245 U.S. 366 (1918).

245 U.S. at 390.

Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 604, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 451-473. Actual conscription has been precluded as of July 1, 1973, P.L. 92-129, 85 Stat. 353, 50 U.S.C. App. § 467(c), and registration was discontinued in 1975. Pres. Proc. No. 4360, 3 C.F.R. 462, 50 U. S.C. App. § 453 note. Registration, but not conscription, was reactivated in the wake of the invasion of Afghanistan. P.L. 96-282, 94 Stat. 552 (1980).

391 U.S. 367 (1968).

391 U.S. at 377, quoting Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742 , 756 (1948).

Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 , 510 (1975).

Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 59 (1981). See id. at 64-65. And see Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U. S. 841 (1984) (upholding denial of federal financial assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act to young men who fail to register for the draft).

Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 , 743 -752 (1974). See also Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 , 93 -94 (1953); Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 , 746 -748 (1975); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 , 837 -838 (1976); Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 , 45 -46 (1976); Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 , 353 -358 (1980); Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 , 64 -68 (1981).

Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 , 67 (1981).

453 U.S. at 66. "[P]erhaps in no other area has the Court accorded Congress greater deference." Id. at 64-65. See also Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U. S. 1 , 10 (1973).

Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 , 758 (1974). "[T]he tests and limitations [of the Constitution] to be applied may differ because of the military context." Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 , 67 (1981).

Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). Compare Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), with Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975).

Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976), limiting Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197 (1972).

Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980); Secretary of the Navy v. Huff, 444 U.S. 453 (1980). The statutory challenge was based on 10 U.S.C. § 1034, which protects a serviceman's right to communicate with a Member of Congress, but which the Court interpreted narrowly.

Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974).

Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (enlisted men charging racial discrimination by their superiors in duty assignments and performance evaluations could not bring constitutional tort suits); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) (officer who had been an unwitting, unconsenting subject of an Army experiment to test the effects of LSD on human subjects could not bring a constitutional tort for damages). These considerations are also the basis of the Court's construction of the Federal Tort Claims Act so that it does not reach injuries arising out of or in the course of military activity. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950). In United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681 (1987), four Justices urged reconsideration of Feres, but that has not occurred.

United States v. Williams, 302 U.S. 46 (1937). See also In re Grimley, 137 U.S. 147 , 153 (1890); In re Morrissey, 137 U.S. 157 (1890).

Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655 (1950); Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46 (1981). In the absence of express congressional language, like that found in Wissner, the Court nonetheless held that a state court division under its community property system of an officer's military retirement benefits conflicted with the federal program and could not stand. McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981). See also Porter v. Aetna Casualty Co., 370 U.S. 159 (1962) (exemption from creditors' claims of disability benefits deposited by a veteran's guardian in a savings and loan association).

Dameron v. Brodhead, 345 U.S. 322 (1953). See also California v. Buzard, 382 U.S. 386 (1966); Sullivan v. United States, 395 U.S. 169 (1969).

McKinley v. United States, 249 U.S. 397 (1919).

The Uniform Code of Military Justice of 1950, 64 Stat. 107, as amended by the Military Justice Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1335, 10 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. For prior acts, see 12 Stat. 736 (1863); 39 Stat. 650 (1916). See Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (1996) (in context of the death penalty under the UCMJ).

Compare Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 , 441 -47 (1987) (majority opinion), with id. at 456-61 (dissenting opinion), and O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 , 268 -72 (1969) (majority opinion), with id. at 276-80 (Justice Harlan dissenting). See Duke & Vogel, The Constitution and the Standing Army: Another Problem of Court-Martial Jurisdiction, 13 VAND. L. REV. 435 (1960).

395 U.S. 258 (1969).

395 U.S. at 273-74. See also Relford v. Commandant, 401 U.S. 355 (1971); Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665 (1973).

483 U.S. 435 (1987).

483 U.S. at 450-51.

483 U.S. at 448. Although the Court of Military Appeals had affirmed Solorio's military-court conviction on the basis that the service-connection test had been met, the Court elected to reconsider and overrule O'Callahan altogether.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 , 123 , 138-139 (1866); Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 , 40 (1942). The matter was raised but left unresolved in Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976).

See Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (1949). Cf. Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333 (1907).

United States v. Jacoby, 11 U.S.C.M.A. 428, 29 C.M.R. 244 (1960); United States v. Tempia, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 629, 37 C.M.R. 249 (1967). This conclusion by the Court of Military Appeals is at least questioned and perhaps disapproved in Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 , 43 -48 (1976), in the course of overturning a CMA rule that counsel was required in summary court- martial. For the CMA's response to the holding see United States v. Booker, 5 M. J. 238 (C.M.A. 1977), rev'd in part on reh., 5 M. J. 246 (C.M.A. 1978).

The UCMJ guarantees counsel, protection from self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and warnings of rights prior to interrogation, to name a few.

Cf. O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 , 263 -264 (1969).

10 U.S.C. § 867.

Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974). Article 133 punishes a commissioned officer for "conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman," and Article 134 punishes any person subject to the Code for "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces."

417 U.S. at 756.

417 U.S. at 757-61.

Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U.S. 487 (1885); Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 65 (1858). Judges of Article I courts do not have the independence conferred by security of tenure and of compensation.

Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 65 (1858).

Military Justice Act of 1983, P.L. 98-209, 97 Stat. 1393, 28 U.S.C. § 1259.

Cf. Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866); Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 85(1869); Ex parte Reed, 100 U.S. 13 (1879). While federal courts have jurisdiction to intervene in military court proceedings prior to judgment, as a matter of equity, following the standards applicable to federal court intervention in state criminal proceedings, they should act when the petitioner has not exhausted his military remedies only in extraordinary circumstances. Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975).

Ex parte Reed, 100 U.S. 13 (1879); Swaim v. United States, 165 U.S. 553 (1897); Carter v. Roberts, 177 U.S. 496 (1900); Hiatt v. Brown, 339 U.S. 103 (1950).

346 U.S. 137 (1953).

Cf. Fowler v. Wilkinson, 353 U.S. 583 (1957); United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348 , 350 n. 3, 351 (1969); Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974); Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech, 418 U.S. 676 (1974).

E.g., Calley v. Callaway, 519 F. 2d 184, 194-203 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 911 (1976).

United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955). See also Lee v. Madigan, 358 U.S. 228 (1959).

Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956); Reid v. Covert, 351 U.S. 487 -1956

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (voiding court-martial convictions of two women for murdering their soldier husbands stationed in Japan). Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, and Brennan were of the opinion Congress' power under clause 14 could not reach civilians. Justices Frankfurter and Harlan concurred, limited to capital cases. Justices Clark and Burton dissented.

Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960) (voiding court-martial conviction for noncapital crime committed overseas by civilian wife of soldier). The majority could see no reason for distinguishing between capital and noncapital crimes. Justices Harlan and Frankfurter dissented on the ground that in capital cases greater constitutional protection, available in civil courts, was required.

Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278 (1960); McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960).


297 U.S. 288 (1936).

39 Stat. 166 (1916).

297 U.S. at 327-328.

60 Stat. 755 (1946), 42 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.

108(a), 70 Stat. 374, 378 (1956), 23 U.S.C. § 101(b), naming the Interstate System the "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways."

72 Stat. 1580 (1958), as amended, codified to various sections of Titles 20 and 42.

Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 604, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 451-473. Actual conscription has been precluded as of July 1, 1973, P. L. 92-129, 85 Stat. 353, 50 U. S. C. App. 467(c), although registration for possible conscription is in effect. P. L. 96-282, 94 Stat. 552 (1980).

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 426, as amended, codified in various sections of Titles 5, 18, and 50.

Title II of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1970, 84 Stat. 799, as amended, provided temporary authority for wage and price controls, a power which the President subsequently exercised. E.O. 11615, 36 Fed Reg. 15727 (August 16, 1971). Subsequent legislation expanded the President's authority. 85 Stat. 743, 12 U.S.C. § 1904 note.

Renogtiation Act of 1951, 65 Stat. 7, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. § 1211 et seq.

E.g., Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (1961); Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331 (1955).

Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965); United States v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475 (1967).

United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967); United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).

Stewart v. Kahn, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 493 , 507 (1871) (sustaining a congressional deduction from a statute of limitations the period during which the Civil War prevented the bringing of an action). See also Mayfield v. Richards, 115 U.S. 137 (1885).

251 U.S. 146 (1919). See also Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U.S. 264 (1920).

Act of November 21, 1918, 40 Stat. 1046.

251 U.S. at 163.

Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921).

Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543 (1924).

Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U.S. 138 (1948). See also Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S. 111 (1947).

333 U.S. at 143-44.

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948).

335 U.S. at 170.

Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742 , 779 (1948).

For an extensive consideration of this subject in the context of the President's redelegation of it, see N. GRUNDSTEIN, PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY IN WARTIME (1961).

In the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 , 389 (1918), the objection was dismissed without discussion. The issue was decided by reference to peacetime precedents in Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 , 424 (1944).

88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 73 (1875).

88 U.S. at 96-97. Cf. United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. 1 (1926).

320 U.S. 81 (1943).

320 U.S. at 91-92, 104.

320 U.S. at 104.

334 U.S. 742 (1948).

334 U.S. at 778-79, 782.

334 U.S. at 778-83.

71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866).

71 U.S. at 127.

71 U.S. at 132, 138.

71 U.S. at 121, 139-42.

327 U.S. 304 (1946).

New Orleans v. The Steamship Co., 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 387 (1874); Santiago v. Nogueras, 214 U.S. 260 (1909); Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U.S. 341 (1952).

100 U.S. 15 8, 170 (1880).

De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904).

354 U.S. 1 (1957).

354 U.S. at 6, 7.

For a comprehensive treatment, preceding Reid v. Covert, of the matter in the context of the post-War war crimes trials, see Fairman, Some New Problems of the Constitution Following the Flag, 1 STAN. L. REV. 587 (1949).

12 U.S. (8 Cr.) 110 (1814). See also Conrad v. Waples, 96 U.S. 279 (1878).

Miller v. United States, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 268 (1871); Steehr v. Wallace, 255 U.S. 239 (1921); Central Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U.S. 554 (1921); United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. 1 (1926); Silesian-American Corp. v. Clark, 332 U.S. 469 (1947); Cities Service Co. v. McGrath, 342 U.S. 330 (1952); Handelsbureau La Mola v. Kennedy, 370 U.S. 940 (1962); cf. Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484 (1967).

The Siren, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 389 (1871).

The Hampton, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 372 , 376 (1867).

The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 , 700 , 711 (1900).

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 , 120 -121 (1866).

"During the late wicked Rebellion, the temper of the times did not allow that calmness in deliberation and discussion so necessary to a correct conclusion of a purely judicial question. Then, considerations of safety were mingled with the exercise of power; and feelings and interests prevailed which were happily terminated. Now that the public safety is assured, this question, as well as all others, can be discussed and decided without passion or the admixture of any element not required to form a legal judgment." Id. at 109 (emphasis by Court).

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919); Sugarman v. United States, 249 U.S. 182 (1919); Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

40 Stat. 217 (1917), as amended by 40 Stat. 553 (1918).

Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325 (1920).

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 , 52 (1919).

Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943).

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944).

E.g., Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951); Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1 (1961); American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950).

E.g., Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957); Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 (1965); United States v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437 (1965).

United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967); cf. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964). And see Schneider v. Smith, 390 U.S. 17 (1968).

§ 5(a)(1)(D) of the Subversive Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat 992, 50 U.S.C. § 784(a)(1)(D).

389 U.S. at 264-66. Justices Harlan and White dissented, contending that the right of association should have been balanced against the public interest and finding the weight of the latter the greater. Id. at 282.

403 U.S. 713 (1971).

The result in the case was reached by a six-to-three majority. The three dissenters, Chief Justice Burger, 403 U.S. at 748, Justice Harlan, id. at 752, and Justice Blackmun, id. at 759, would have granted an injunction in the case; Justices Stewart and White, id. at 727, 730, would not in that case but could conceive of cases in which they would.

1 Stat. 577 (1798).

6 WRITING OF JAMES MADISON 360-361 (G. Hunt ed., 1904).

40 Stat. 531 (1918), 50 U.S.C. § 21.

335 U.S. 160 (1948).

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).

Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 , 134 (1852).

120 U.S. 227 (1887).

120 U.S. at 239.

H.R. Rep. No. 262, 43d Cong., 1st Sess. (1874), 39-40.

United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U.S. 121 (1950); United States v. Toronto Nav. Co., 338 U.S. 396 (1949); Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1 (1949); United States v. Cors, 337 U.S. 325 (1949); United States v. Felin & Co., 334 U.S. 624 (1948); United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U.S. 372 (1946); United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373 (1945).

United States v. Caltex, Inc., 344 U.S. 149 , 154 (1952). Justices Douglas and Black dissented.

Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921).

But quaere in the light of Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934), Olsen v. Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference and Bond Ass'n, 313 U.S. 236 (1941), and their progeny.

Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 , 156 (1921).

Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944); Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944); Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943); Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S. 111 (1947); Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742 (1948).

Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 , 519 (1944).

321 U.S. at 521. The Court stressed, however, that Congress had provided for judicial review after the regulations and orders were made effective.

Act of October 22, 1919, 2, 41 Stat. 297.

United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (1921).

Moore v. Houston, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 169 (1817), affirmed, Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820).

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869); Tyler v. Defrees, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 331 (1871).

1 Stat. 424 (1795), 10 U.S.C. § 332.

Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 , 32 (1827).

Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820); Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 (1827).

Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 , 16 (1820). Organizing and providing for the militia being constitutionally committed to Congress and statutorily shared with the Executive, the judiciary is precluded from exercising oversight over the process, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973), although wrongs committed by troops are subject to judicial relief in damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 233 (1974).

39 Stat. 166, 197, 198, 200, 202, 211 (1916), codified in sections of Titles 10 & 32. See Wiener, The Militia Clause of the Constitution, 54 HARV. L. çREV. 181 (1940).

Military and civilian personnel of the National Guard are state, rather than federal, employees and the Federal Government is thus not liable under the Tort Claims Act for their negligence. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965).

Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 434 (1990).


THE FEDERALIST, No. 43 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 288-289. See also 3 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 1213, 1214 (1833).


Maryland Laws 1798, ch. 2, p. 46; 13 Laws of Virginia 43 (Hening 1789).

Act of July 16, 1790, 1 Stat. 130. In 1846, Congress authorized a referendum in Alexandria County on the question of retroceding that portion to Virginia. The voters approved and the area again became part of Virginia. Laws of Virginia 1845- 46, ch. 64, p. 50; Act of July 9, 1846, 9 Stat. 35; Proclamation of September 7, 1846; 9 Stat. 1000. Constitutional questions were raised about the retrocession but suit did not reach the Supreme Court until some 40 years later and the Court held that the passage of time precluded the raising of the question. Phillips v. Payne, 92 U.S. 130 (1875).

Act of February 27, 1801, 2, 2 Stat. 103. The declaration of the continuing effect of state law meant that law in the District was frozen as of the date of cession, unless Congress should change it, which it seldom did. For some of the problems, see Tayloe v. Thompson, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 358 (1831); Ex parte Watkins, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 568 (1833); Stelle v. Carroll, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 201 (1838); Van Ness v. United States Bank, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 17 (1839); United States v. Eliason, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 291 (1842).

Act of March 3, 1801, 1, 2 Stat. 115.

The objections raised in the ratifying conventions and elsewhere seemed to have consisted of prediction of the perils to the Nation of setting up the National Government in such a place. 3 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 1215, 1216 (1833).

THE FEDERALIST, No. 43 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 289.

Such a contention was cited and rebutted in 3 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 1218 (1833).

Act of May 3, 1802, 2 Stat. 195; Act of May 15, 1820, 3 Stat. 583; Act of February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419; Act of June 20, 1874, 18 Stat. 116. The engrossing story of the postwar changes in the government is related in W. WHYTE, THE UN-CIVIL WAR: WASHINGTON DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION (1958).

Act of June 11, 1878, 20 Stat. 103.

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967, 32 Fed. Reg. 11699, reprinted as appendix to District of Columbia Code, Title I.

District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774.

Twenty-third Amendment.

P.L. 91-405, 84 Stat. 848, D.C. Code, § 1-291.

H.J. Res. 554, 95th Congress, passed the House on March 2, 1978, and the Senate on August 22, 1978, but only 16 States had ratified before the expiration after seven years of the proposal.

Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 (1820); Heald v. District of Columbia, 259 U.S. 114 (1922).

District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100 (1953). The case upheld the validity of ordinances enacted by the District governing bodies in 1872 and 1873 prohibiting racial discrimination in places of public accommodations.

346 U.S. at 109-10. See also Thompson v. Lessee of Carroll, 63 U.S. (22 How.) 422 (1860); Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U.S. 141 (1889).

6 U.S. (2 Cr.) 445 (1805); see also Sere v. Pitot, 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) 332 (1810); New Orleans v. Winter, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 91 (1816). The District was held to be a State within the terms of a treaty. Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890).

Barney v. City of Baltimore, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 280 (1868); Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 (1897); Hooe v. Werner, 166 U.S. 399 (1897).

National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582 (1949).

337 U.S. at 588-600 (Justices Jackson, Black and Burton).

337 U.S. at 604 (Justices Rutledge and Murphy). The dissents were by Chief Justice Vinson, id. at 626, joined by Justice Douglas, and by Justice Frankfurter, id. at 646, joined by Justice Reed.

Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888); Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1 (1899).

United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922).

Wright v. Davidson, 181 U.S. 371 , 384 (1901); cf. Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), overruled in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).

Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524 , 619 (1838): Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 , 300 (1893); Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U.S. 427 , 435 (1932); O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 , 518 (1933).

In the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, P.L. 91-358, 111, 84 Stat. 475, D.C. Code, § 11-101, Congress specifically declared it was acting pursuant to Article I in creating the Superior Court and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and pursuant to Article III in continuing the United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Article I courts were sustained in Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389 (1973). See also Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372 (1977). The latter, federal courts, while Article III courts, traditionally have had some non-Article III functions imposed on them, under the "hybrid" theory announced in O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933). E.g., Hobson v. Hansen, 265 F. Supp. 902 (D.D.C. 1967), appeal dismissed, 393 U. S. 801 (1968) (power then vested in District Court to appoint school board members). See also Keller v. Potomac Electric Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923); Embry v. Palmer, 107 U.S. 3 (1883).

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 , 428 (1821).

James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 , 143 (1937).

Battle v. United States, 209 U.S. 36 (1908).

Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439 (1929).

James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 , 143 (1937).

Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518 , 530 (1938).

304 U.S. at 528.

Battle v. United States, 209 U.S. 36 (1908); Johnson v. Yellow Cab Co., 321 U.S. 383 (1944); Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (1939).

Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647 (1930).

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chiles, 214 U.S. 274 (1909); Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439 (1929); Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture, 318 U.S. 285 (1943). The Assimilative Crimes Act of 1948, 18 U.S.C. § 13, making applicable to a federal enclave a subsequently enacted criminal law of the State in which the enclave is situated entails no invalid delegation of legislative power to the State. United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286 , 294 , 296-297 (1958).

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542 , 545 (1885); Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94 (1940).

Howard v. Commissioners, 344 U.S. 624 (1953). As Howard recognized, such areas of federal property do not cease to be part of the State in which they are located and the residents of the areas are for most purposes residents of the State. Thus, a State may not constitutionally exclude such residents from the privileges of suffrage if they are otherwise qualified. Evans v. Cornman, 398 U. S. 419 (1970).

Palmer v. Barrett, 162 U.S. 399 (1896).

United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138 (1930).

Benson v. United States, 146 U.S. 325, 331 (1892).

Palmer v. Barrett, 162 U.S. 399 (1896).

S.R.A., Inc. v. Minnesota, 327 U.S. 558 , 564 (1946).

327 U.S. at 570, 571.

Fort Leavenworth R.R. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525 , 532 (1885); United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138 , 142 (1930); Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647 , 652 (1930).

United States v. Cornell, 25 Fed. Cas. 646, 649 (No. 14,867) (C.C.D.R.I. 1819).

James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 , 145 (1937).

Mason Co. v. Tax Comm'n, 302 U.S. 186 (1937). See also Atkinson v. Tax Comm'n, 303 U.S. 20 (1938).

]> 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).

17 U.S. at 420. This decision had been clearly foreshadowed fourteen years earlier by Marshall's opinion in United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. (2 Cr.) 358 , 396 (1805). Upholding an act which gave priority to claims of the United States against the estate of a bankrupt, he wrote: "The government is to pay the debt of the Union, and must be authorized to use the means which appear to itself most eligible to effect that object. It has, consequently, a right to make remittance, by bills or otherwise, and to take those precautions which will render the transaction safe."

See "Delegation of Legislative Power ," supra.

Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109 , 121 (1901). See also Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

See discussion of "Necessary and Proper Clause " under the commerce power, supra.

Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 , 281 (1856). Congress may also legislate to protect its spending power. Sabri v. United States , 124 S. Ct. 1941 (2004) (upholding imposition of criminal penalties for bribery of state and local officials administering programs receiving federal funds).

Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 , 373 (1876); United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315 , 320 (1877).

See "Fiscal and Monetary Powers of Congress ," supra.

United States v. Fox, 95 U.S. 670, 672 (1978); United States v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343 , 357 (1879); United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. (2 Dall. ) 384 , 394 (1798); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). That this power has been freely exercised is attested by the pages of the United States Code devoted to Title 18, entitled "Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure." In addition numerous regulatory measures in other titles prescribe criminal penalties.

Ex parte Carll, 106 U.S. 521 (1883).

United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 560 , 567 (1850).

Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 (1892).

United States v. Barnow, 239 U.S. 74 (1915).

Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76 (1884); In re Quarles and Butler, 158 U.S. 532 , 537 (1895); Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458 (1900); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915). See also Rakes v. United States, 212 U.S. 55 (1909).

Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 (1882).

18 U.S.C. § 2385.

See National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Final Report (Washington: 1970); National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Working Papers (Washington: 1970), 2 vols.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 407 (1819).

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 , 862(1824). See also Pittman v. Home Owners' Corp., 308 U.S. 21 (1939).

First National Bank v. Follows ex rel. Union Trust Co., 244 U.S. 416 (1917); Missouri ex rel. Burnes National Bank v. Duncan, 265 U.S. 17 (1924).

Smith v. Kansas City Title Co., 255 U.S. 180 (1921).

Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 , 449 (1884).

Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533 (1869).

Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884). See also Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee), 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1871).

Norman v. Baltimore & O. R.R., 294 U.S. 240 , 303 (1935).

Pacific R.R. Removal Cases, 115 U.S. 1 (1885); California v. Pacific R.R., 127 U.S. 1 , 39 (1888).

Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894).

Clallam County v. United States, 263 U.S. 341 (1923).

Sloan Shipyards v. United States Fleet Corp., 258 U.S. 549 (1922).

Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657 , 721 (1838).

Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257 , 263 (1880).

Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456 (2003).

Railway Company v. Whitton, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 270 , 287 (1872).

Embry v. Palmer, 107 U.S. 3 (1883).

Bank of the United States v. Halstead, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 51 , 53 (1825).

Express Co. v. Kountze Bros., 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 342 , 350 (1869).

Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 , 449(1929). But see Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

43 Stat. 5 (1924). See Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929).

Paramino Co. v. Marshall, 309 U.S. 370 (1940).

Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 (1944).

Detroit Trust Co. v. The Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21 (1934).

Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149 (1920); Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219 (1924).

This document cites

See other documents that cite the same legislation

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2017, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex United States

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners