Tenth amendment

Bond v. United States

Issues

Do the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses, read in connection with the treaty power, allow a statute that was enacted by Congress to enforce a treaty to serve as a valid basis for prosecuting a criminal defendant in Federal District Court?

Petitioner Carol Anne Bond was arrested in 2007 for attempts to poison a romantic rival, which culminated in a minor burn to the rival’s thumb. A federal district court sentenced Bond to six years in prison and five years of supervised release, and ordered her to pay a fine and make restitution, under the authority of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. Congress passed that statute to implement an international arms-control agreement to prohibit chemical warfare. Bond challenged her conviction, claiming the statute’s application to her domestic conduct exceeded Congress’ limited and enumerated powers. In reviewing her challenge, the Third Circuit held that Congress’ power to implement treaties validated the statute and Bond’s conviction. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will affect not only how broadly federal criminal statutes apply, but also the scope of Congress’ authority to implement treaties.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Whether the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations; and
  2. whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s decision in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

top

Facts

In 2006, Carol Anne Bond discovered that her friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant from an affair with Bond’s husband. See United States v. Bond, 681 F.3d 149, 151 (3d Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0

Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

Issues

Does the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act violate the Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine by preventing states from modifying or repealing state-law prohibitions on sports gambling?

The Court will decide whether § 3702(1) of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), which prohibits state authorization of sports gambling, is a lawful preemption of New Jersey’s 2014 law repealing previous state bans on sports gambling or is a violation of the Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine. The issue was originally presented when the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) sued New Jersey claiming PASPA preempted a 2012 New Jersey law which legalized and regulated sports gambling. There, the Third Circuit held that PASPA did not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine because it did not require states to act. In response, New Jersey enacted a 2014 law which repealed existing state-law bans of sports gambling. The NCAA once again filed suit and the case once again rose through the Third Circuit. Christie claims PASPA’s prohibition of authorization of sports gambling violates the anti-commandeering doctrine because requiring states to maintain prohibitions is just as harmful to federalism as is requiring states to act. The NCAA contends that PASPA is a lawful preemption of state law, and even if § 3702(1)’s prohibition of authorization is unlawful, the rest of PASPA’s provisions should remain in effect. The Court’s decision will determine the scope of the Tenth Amendment and could have significant consequences for the legality of sports gambling nationwide.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeer the regulatory power of States in contravention of New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)?

In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), which prohibits states and their political subdivisions from authorizing, licensing, regulating, and controlling sports gambling. See NCAA v. Governor of New Jersey, 832 F.3d 389, 392 (3d Cir. 2016).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

federalism

Overview

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government is responsible for broader governance of larger territorial areas, while the smaller subdivisions, states, and cities govern the issues of local concern.

Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Garden Citizens in Action, Inc.

Issues

Can disparate impact claims be brought under Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act absent any evidence of intentional discrimination?

(Note: This case settled on November 13, 2013. The Supreme Court dismissed the case on November 15, 2013.)

This case asked whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). That section makes it unlawful “to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” The Township of Mount Holly argued that the plain language of the statute does not permit disparate treatment claims, whereas residents of Mount Holly Gardens argued the opposite. Further, the Township asserted that permitting disparate-impact claims raises constitutional concerns—including Equal Protection Clause and Tenth Amendment violations, but the Residents countered that no such violations result from acknowledging disparate-impact liability under the statute. This case presented the Supreme Court with the opportunity to definitively rule on whether the FHA allows for disparate-impact claims. On November 13, 2013, the parties settled, and on November 15, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the case.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Are disparate impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act?

top

Facts

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which includes the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), to secure equal housing opportunities regardless of race, creed, or national origin.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Watters v. Wachovia Bank

Issues

1. Are State-chartered subsidiaries of national banks exempt from State regulation because of their relationship with a national bank?

2. Does equating a State-chartered subsidiary of a national bank to a national bank constitute conversion of a State corporation into a Federal corporation in violation of the Tenth Amendment?

 

Michigan has attempted to regulate State-charted nonbank subsidiaries of national banks. National banks are governed by the National Bank Act and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Through §484(a) of the National Bank Act, national banks are not subject to State regulation. Through 12 C.F.R. 7.4006, the OCC expanded the reach of §484 to cover subsidiaries of national banks as well. Wachovia Mortgage, a State-chartered nonbank subsidiary of Wachovia Bank, a national bank, operates in Michigan. Michigan seeks to exercise regulatory power over the entity. Both courts below held that the OCC’s expansion of §484 was valid and that Michigan could not exercise regulatory power over the subsidiary, Wachovia Mortgage. The decision of the Supreme Court in this case will affect the balance of power between State and Federal regulatory and consumer protection measures.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. 12 U.S.C. § 484(a) of the National Bank Act limits visitorial powers over "national banks" except as authorized by federal law. National banks are defined and created under the National Bank Act. State-chartered nonbank operating subsidiaries of national banks are created under State corporate law. The Comptroller of the Currency, by Rule 12 CFR 7.4006, made 12 USC § 484(a) equally applicable to State-chartered nonbank "operating subsidiaries" of national banks. Is the interpretation of the Comptroller of the Currency that 12 CFR 7.4006 preempts Michigan's laws regulating mortgage lending as applied to State chartered nonbank operating subsidiaries, entitled to judicial deference under Chevron USA, Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 US 837 (1984)?

2. A national bank has been declared to be a national corporation in Guthrie v Harkness, 199 US 148, 159 (1905). 12 CFR 7.4006 treats a State-chartered nonbank operating subsidiary of a national bank as equivalent to a national bank and, thus, as a national corporation. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is violated to the extent a statute permits the conversion of State corporations into federal ones in contravention of the laws of the place of their creation. Hopkins v Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v Cleary, 296 US 315, 335 (1935). Does 12 CFR 7.4006, by equating a State-chartered nonbank operating subsidiary with a national bank for purposes of federal preemption of State regulation, violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Wachovia Bank is a national bank chartered under the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 21. Wachovia Mortgage is a "State-chartered nonbank, operating subsidiary of Wachovia Bank." Watters v. Wachovia, 431 F.3d 556, 558 (6th. Cir. 2005); Brief for the Petitioner at 7.

Additional Resources

Law about... Banking

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Tenth amendment