States' Rights Muddle

The Washington Post ^ | Wednesday, May 28, 2003

[presidio9]

THE SUPREME COURT stemmed its deeply troubling line of states' rights cases yesterday by handing down a decision that reaffirms Congress's broad power to prevent discrimination by states. The 6 to 3 ruling, written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, upheld the legislature's power to authorize suits against state governments under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, which guarantees unpaid leave to workers who have babies or need to care for relatives. The decision tacks against the court's recent jurisprudence, which has reined in Congress's ability to authorize suits for money against states that violate federal strictures. The change is welcome -- yet it underlines the absence of recognizable principles in the court's decisions governing the balance of power between states and the federal government. The result is a muddle.

[Thane_Banquo]

Quick, someone fax this guy a copy of the 10th Amendment.

[Mr. Bird]

THE SUPREME COURT stemmed its deeply troubling line of states' rights cases

I didn't read past that. Do they give any reasons why this return to the original intent of the founders is so "troubling"?

[scalia_#1]

There is no muddle. Agree or disagree with the Court's opinion, it deals specifically with Congress' power to enact remedial legislation under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. The "states' rights" opinions about which the Post frets either concern (i) Congress' Article I powers, which are limited by both the 10th and 11th Amendments, or (ii) Congress' remedial powers under the 14th Amendment, which are not necessarily limited by the 10th and 11th Amendments, but which are primarily limited by the Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Nevada case falls under the latter.

[Mr. Bird]

The Post was saying that the returning of rights to states was troubling. I was wondering why they thought that. I did not indicate that I believed the FMLA was part of the founders vision, and I'm surprised you think I did.

[tpaine]

Color me confused. Where is the constitutional power to enact:
-- "the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, which guarantees unpaid leave to workers who have babies or need to care for relatives"?

[scalia_#1]

"Color me confused . . ."

Confusion is one thing -- I'm only contesting the Post's argument that the Court's federalism opinions are muddled. Whether you agree or disagree with yesterday's opinion, the question centers on the powers of Congress under the 14th Amendment, not Congress' Article I authority. Most of the states' rights cases have concerned Congress exceeding its powers under Article I. A few other cases have concerned Congress exceeding its powers under the 14th Amendment. The standards under each are different.

[eyespysomething]

Bump to read again later, when I can digest it clearly. In other words - after reading the story twice, it is still very confusing. Not very clear on what is muddled or which is bad - states rights or federal powers over states rights?

[El Gato]

states' rights cases

Niether states, nor the Federal government have rights under the Constitution, only powers. People have rights. In some cases the Federal government may enforce rights of the people against the state governments. See US Constitution, Art. IV sec. 4 and Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26 for examples. (Not quite an exhaustive list either)

[El Gato]

So what you are saying is that a challenge to the law itself would be on the basis of Congress exceeding it's Article 1 powers, whereas this lawsuit is about the states violating the equal protection clause of the 14th with regard to discrimination in how they apply the provisions of the law to their employees.

Hmm, I've always thought that equal protection applied to the States as governments with respect to private citizens of the state, not necessarily to state goverments as employers with respect to their employees. And so I'm a litte surprised the court allowed/agreed with the 14th amendment arguments. One would have to read the decision, not merely the Post's interpretation of it, to really understand their reasoning. It will be available shortly.

Certainly the law itself was not passed under the 14th amendment, was it? I guess we need an amendment forcing Congress to indicate what power or powers, by Article, section or amendment, they are exercising when they pass a law. Might reduce the number of laws....well, if they were honest it would...but..well...you know.

[scalia_#1]

No, the challenge would have to be that Congress exceeded its remedial powers under Sect. 5 of the 14th Amendment. The law was in fact passed under Congress' 14th Amendment powers so that citizens could sue "public agenc[ies]" for money damages for FMLA violations. If it was only passed under Article I, the 11th Amendment would forbid any suit against the states (even by public employees of the states) for money damages (public employees would still be able to seek injunctive relief). Because the FMLA was passed ostensibly under the 14th Amendment, the rules change. Congress can specifically abrogate the state's sovereign immunity (recognized by the 11th Amendment) if it passes remedial legislation under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. So the division in the Court was whether Congress exceeded its powers under the 14th Amendment when enacting the FMLA. A majority believed that Congress did not. Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas believed that it did.

Here's the opinion: http://supct.law.cornell.edu:8080/supct/html/01-1368.ZS.html

[El Gato]

Thanks for the link. Now I'm really confused however. The summary indicates that the man was granted the amount of family leave provided for by the Act, but failed to return to work after that 12 week period.. I think, although its possible the state told him to return before the 12 week period was up.

My comment went to the question of wether Congress has the power to tell any employer, including local governments, how much leave they must give their employees, and for what purposes. Not that the state governments, acting as employers, be under the same law as private employers. Although it once was the case that local governments did not have to pay the federal minimum wage, nor did they have to participate in Social Security.

I think the decision stinks, but then I'm not a lawyer. It seems to say that Congress can allege a "pattern of discrimination" and pass whatever law with whatever provisons it wants.

Because the FMLA was passed ostensibly under the 14th Amendment, the rules change

The FMLA as a whole or those provisions abrogating states 11 amendment sovereignty protections? The latter I can see, the former I cannot.

[GotDangGenius]

I swear, the next 20 years are going to be the era of states' rights- bet on it.

Montana just banned the federal governemnt from purchasing any more land owned by the state. It's HB 223 enacted into law by Rep. Reick Maedje (R)- Fortine, Mt who got an amendment on the underlying bill to: "[s]tate land may not be sold to the federal government or to any agency of the federal government, except for the purpose of building federal facilities and structures."

check out the story on this link:

http://www.sierratimes.com/greenslade.htm