Sandbox:Postell National League of Cities v. Usury

* Federalism
* Terms and definitions
* Laws
* Court cases
* Major arguments
* State responses to federal mandates
* State survey of the federal grant review process
* State responses to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
* State responses by question to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
* Federalism by the numbers
* Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates
* Federalism by the numbers: Federal grants-in-aid
* Federalism by the numbers: Federal information collection requests
* Overview of federal spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
* Index of articles

|

National League of Cities v. Usury
Reference: 78 U.S. 878
Term: 1976
Important Dates
Argued: Apr 16, 1975
Reargued: Mar 2, 1976
Decided: Jun 24, 1976
Outcome
Utah Territorial Supreme Court upheld
Majority
Warren Burger • Lewis Powell • Potter Stewart • William Rehnquist
Concurring
Harry Blackmun
Dissenting
William Brennan • Thurgood Marshall • Byron White • John Paul Stevens

National League of Cities v. Usury was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 24, 1976, that held that Congress cannot regulate the labor market within the states because the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from regulating interstate commerce.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS

* The case: In 1974, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to regulate minimum wage and overtime pay for state and local government employees. The National League of Cities argued that the amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the states reserved the authority to set the minimum wage and regulate overtime pay.

* The issue: Does Congress have the authority under the commerce clause to regulate the labor market of state employees?

* The outcome: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress does not have the authority to regulate overtime pay and establish a minimum wage within the states because the Constitution reserves that authority to the states via the Tenth Amendment.

Why it matters: To learn more about the aftermath of this case click here.[1]

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 2 Oral argument
* 3 Decision
* 4 Opinion
* 4.1 Majority opinion
* 4.2 Concurring opinion
* 4.3 Dissenting opinions
* 4.3.1 Brennan's dissenting opinion
* 4.3.2 Justice Stephens' dissenting opinion
* 5 Aftermath
* 6 See also
* 7 External links
* 8 Footnotes

## Background[edit]

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was upheld in United States v. Darby Lumber Co. and amended by Congress in 1974 to remove exemptions relating to state employees. After the amendment, the Fair Labor Standards Act made it illegal to pay state employees below a minimum wage and it also set maximum work hours for state employees. Before the amendment, the Fair Labor Standards Act only applied to private employees who engaged in interstate commerce. After the Amendment, the Act applied equally to all state employees including hospital workers and school workers, which were historically categorized as beyond the reach of interstate commerce regulatory powers.

The National League of Cities and other cities and states filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Secretary of Labor and sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs argued that the Fair Labor Standards Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

## Oral argument[edit]

Oral argument was held on April 16, 1975. The case was reargued on March 2, 1976.[2]

## Decision[edit]

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 24, 1976, that the amendments to the Federal Labor Standards Act violated the Tenth Amendment

Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, Lewis Powell, and Potter Stewart.[1]

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote a concurring opinion.[2]

Justice William Brennan wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion.[2]

## Opinion[edit]

See also: Federalism

### Majority opinion[edit]

Justice Rehnquist wrote the 5-4 majority opinion for the United States Supreme Court. The majority opinion held that the 1974 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act were not within the authority of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Justice Rehnquist acknowledged that congress may regulate commerce within the states even when doing so preempts state law. He argued that the primary question, in this case, was whether the amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act abridged the Tenth Amendment by impairing the states ability to function within the federal system. He argued that congress cannot prescribe a minimum wage for state employees because that would impair the states' in their exercise of essential functions:[2]

“  | It is one thing to recognize the authority of Congress to enact laws regulating individual businesses necessarily subject to the dual sovereignty of the government of the Nation and of the State in which they reside. It is quite another to uphold a similar exercise of congressional authority directed not to private citizens, but to the States as States. We have repeatedly recognized that there are attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government which may not be impaired by Congress, not because Congress may lack an affirmative grant of legislative authority to reach the matter, but because the Constitution prohibits it from exercising the authority in that manner.

[3]

| ”

|
|

Justice Rehnquist cited a number of examples of how the amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act would interfere with the states' essential functions of government. He argued that the requirement for maximum work hours would interfere with local police and fire schedules and would not allow the states to hire part-time employers. He argued that the standards set by the amendments interfered with employment programs adopted by the states.[2]

Because of these reasons, Justice Rehnquist argued that the amendments interfered with the states in their sovereign and integral governmental functions and violated the Tenth Amendment:

“  | Our examination of the effect of the 1974 amendments, as sought to be extended to the States and their political subdivisions, satisfies us that both the minimum wage and the maximum hour provisions will impermissibly interfere with the integral governmental functions of these bodies.

[3]

| ”

|
|

### Concurring opinion[edit]

Justice Blackmun wrote a concurring opinion and said that he was not as troubled by the implications of the majority opinion as the dissenters. He argued that the majority opinion took a balancing approach that "does not outlaw federal power in areas such as environmental protection, where the federal interest is demonstrably greater and where state facility compliance with imposed federal standards would be essential."[2]

### Dissenting opinions[edit]

#### Brennan's dissenting opinion[edit]

Justice Brennan wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices White and Marshall. He argued that the majority opinion allowed the doctrine of state sovereignty to usurp the role reserved for the political process. He argued that the majority opinion discarded precedent to restructure the federal system:[2]

“  | My Brethren do more than turn aside longstanding constitutional jurisprudence that emphatically rejects today's conclusion. More alarming is the startling restructuring of our federal system, and the role they create therein for the federal judiciary. This Court is simply not at liberty to erect a mirror of its own conception of a desirable governmental structure.

[3]

| ”

|
|

#### Justice Stephens' dissenting opinion[edit]

Justice Stephens wrote a dissenting opinion argued that the federal government sets standards that impair the state's ability to organize its essential functions, and gave the example of workplace safety standards. He agreed that some of the standards set by the amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act were unwise, but he said this did not affect his belief in their constitutionality.[2]

## Aftermath[edit]

## See also[edit]

* Federalism
* William Rehnquist
* Harry Blackmun

## External links[edit]

* Search Google News for this topic

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, National League of Cities v. Usury, accessed October 10, 2022
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 JUSTIA, National League of Cities v. Usery, accessed October 10, 2022
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

v • e

Federalism

Terms|

Federalism

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy

Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski • Caitlin Vanden Boom
External Relations: Alison Prange • Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Mandy Morris• Kelly Rindfleisch
Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jimmy McAllister • Samuel Postell
Research: Josh Altic, Managing Editor
Tech: Matt Latourelle • Nathan Bingham • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Joseph Sanchez

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial|

Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Emma Burlingame • Marielle Bricker •Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Nicole Fisher • Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • David Luchs • Roneka Matheny • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus •Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Samantha Post • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora

Category:Federalism court cases Category:Noteworthy cases, federal cases Category:Noteworthy cases, SCOTUS Category:Noteworthy cases, upholding congressional acts and delegations of authority Category:United States Supreme Court Category:Historic SCOTUS cases Category:Decided_SCOTUS_cases