Contract Clause

Last updated

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the Contract Clause, imposes certain prohibitions on the states. These prohibitions are meant to protect individuals from intrusion by state governments and to keep the states from intruding on the enumerated powers of the U.S. federal government.

Contents

Among other things, this clause prohibits states from issuing their own money and from enacting legislation relieving particular persons of their contractual obligations. Although the clause recognizes people's right to form contracts, it allows the government to create laws barring contracts offending public policy, such as contracts for sex or for child labor. Likewise, though prohibited from creating a state currency, states are not barred from making "gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts".

Text

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Treaties, alliances, or confederations

At the time of the Civil War, this clause was one of the provisions upon which the Supreme Court relied in holding that the Confederation formed by the seceding States (the States that withdrew from membership in a federal union) could not be recognized as having any legal existence. [1] Today, its practical significance lies in the limitations which it implies upon the power of the States to deal with matters having a bearing upon international relations. In the early case of Holmes v. Jennison , [2] Chief Justice Taney, referencing the Contract Clause, wrote an opinion which found that states had no power under it to honor an extradition request from a foreign government. More recently, the kindred idea that the responsibility for the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the Federal Government prompted the Court to hold that, since the oil under the three mile marginal belt along the California coast might well become the subject of international dispute and since the ocean, including this three mile belt, is of vital consequence to the nation in its desire to engage in commerce and to live in peace with the world, the Federal Government has paramount rights in and power over that belt, including full dominion over the resources of the soil under the water area. [3] In Skiriotes v. Florida , [4] (1941) the Court, on the other hand, ruled that this clause did not disable Florida from regulating the manner in which its own citizens may engage in sponge fishing outside its territorial waters. Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Hughes declared: “When its action does not conflict with federal legislation, the sovereign authority of the State over the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas is analogous to the sovereign authority of the United States over its citizens in like circumstances.” [5]

Bills of credit

In constitutional context, "bills of credit" mean paper medium of exchange intended to circulate between individuals, and between the Government and individuals, for the ordinary social purposes. Such papers do not need to be legal tender. Interest-bearing certificates in denominations up to ten dollars that were issued by loan offices established by the State of Missouri and made receivable in payment of taxes or other moneys due to the State, and in payment of the fees and salaries of state officers, were held to be bills of credit whose issuance was banned by this section. [6] The States are not forbidden, however, to issue coupons receivable for taxes, [7] nor to execute instruments binding themselves to pay money at a future day for services rendered or money borrowed. [8] Bills issued by state banks are not bills of credit; [9] it is immaterial that the State is the sole stockholder of the bank, [10] that the officers of the bank were elected by the state legislature, [9] or that the capital of the bank was raised by the sale of state bonds. [11]

Relying on this clause, the Supreme Court has held that the creditors should be paid in gold or silver, when the marshal of a state court seizes the property (bank notes) of the debtor within (a discharge of) an execution. [12] However courts ruled valid the state laws providing that checks be drawn on local banks, as the Constitution does not prohibit a bank depositor from consenting when he draws a check that payment may be made by draft. [13]

Bills of attainder

Statutes enacted after the Civil War with the intent and result of excluding persons who had aided the Confederacy from following certain callings, by the device of requiring them to take an oath that they had never given such aid, were held invalid as being bills of attainder, as well as ex post facto laws. [14]

Other attempts to raise bill-of-attainder claims have been unsuccessful. 5-4 Court majorities denied that a municipal ordinance that required all employees to execute oaths that they had never been affiliated with Communist or similar organizations, violated the clause, on the grounds that the ordinance merely provided standards of qualifications and eligibility for employment, and upheld a similar standard for admission to state bar. [15] Later decisions all but overruled the membership standard on First Amendment grounds, holding that such membership was actionable only when coupled with the specific intent to achieve the end. [16]

A law that prohibited any person convicted of a felony and not subsequently pardoned from holding office in a waterfront union was not a bill of attainder because the “distinguishing feature of a bill of attainder is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt” and the prohibition “embodies no further implications of appellant’s guilt than are contained in his 1920 judicial conviction.” [17]

Impairing the obligation of contracts

The Framers of the Constitution added this clause in response to the fear that states would continue a practice that had been widespread under the Articles of Confederation —that of granting "private relief." Legislatures would pass bills relieving particular persons (predictably, influential persons) of their obligation to pay their debts. It was this phenomenon that also prompted the framers to make bankruptcy law the province of the federal government.

During and after the Revolution, many states enacted laws favoring colonial debtors to the detriment of foreign creditors. Federalists, especially Alexander Hamilton, believed that such a practice would jeopardize the future flow of foreign capital into the fledgling United States. Consequently, the Contract Clause, by ensuring the inviolability of sales and financing contracts, encouraged an inflow of foreign capital by reducing the risk of loss to foreign merchants trading with and investing in the former colonies. [18]

The clause does not prohibit the federal government from modifying or abrogating contracts.

During the New Deal Era, the Supreme Court began to depart from the Lochner era constitutional interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Due Process, and the Contract Clause. In Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell , [19] the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that temporarily restricted the ability of mortgage holders to foreclose. [20] The law was enacted to prevent mass foreclosures during the Great Depression, a time of economic hardship in America. The kind of contract modification performed by the law in question was arguably similar to the kind that the Framers intended to prohibit, but the Supreme Court held that this law was a valid exercise of the state's police power, and that the temporary nature of the contract modification and the emergency of the situation justified the law. [21]

Further cases have refined this holding, differentiating between governmental interference with private contracts and interference with contracts entered into by the government. Succinctly, there is more scrutiny when the government modifies a contract to alter its own obligations. [22] [21]

Modification of private contracts

The Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for whether a law conforms with the Contract Clause in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light. [23] First, the state regulation must not substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." [24] Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. This test is similar to rational basis review. [21]

Modification of government contracts

In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, [25] the Supreme Court held that a higher level of scrutiny was needed for situations where laws modified the government's own contractual obligations. In this case, New Jersey had issued bonds to finance the World Trade Center and had contractually promised the bondholders that the collateral would not be used to finance money-losing rail operations. Later, New Jersey attempted to modify law to allow financing of railway operations, and the bondholders successfully sued to prevent this from happening. [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article One of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding Congress

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taft–Hartley Act</span> 1947 U.S. federal law regulating labor unions

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft–Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions. It was enacted by the 80th United States Congress over the veto of President Harry S. Truman, becoming law on June 23, 1947.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined the scope of the U.S. Congress's legislative power and how it relates to the powers of American state legislatures. The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the national bank and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers necessary and proper for the exercise of the powers enumerated explicitly in the Constitution, and secondly that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is restricted. Since the legislature has the authority to tax and spend, the court held that it therefore has authority to establish a national bank, as being "necessary and proper" to that end.

A bill of attainder is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property, the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the Confederate States</span> Supreme law of the Confederate States of America

The Constitution of the Confederate States was the supreme law of the Confederate States of America. It superseded the Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States, the nation's first constitution, in 1862. It remained in effect until the end of the American Civil War in 1865.

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 1833, which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law. The Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments, establishing a precedent until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent. In recent opinions, Justice Clarence Thomas has called on the Supreme Court to reconsider all of its rulings that were based on substantive due process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preamble to the United States Constitution</span> Introductory statement of the US Constitutions fundamental purposes

The Preamble to the United States Constitution, beginning with the words We the People, is a brief introductory statement of the US Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. Courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which international legal obligations are incorporated into federal law under the United States Constitution.

The enumerated powers of the United States Congress are the powers granted to the federal government of the United States by the United States Constitution. Most of these powers are listed in Article I, Section 8.

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law.

The Legal Tender Cases were two 1871 United States Supreme Court cases that affirmed the constitutionality of paper money. The two cases were Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis.

<i>Gold Clause Cases</i> 1935 United States Supreme Court case

The Gold Clause Cases were a series of actions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court narrowly upheld restrictions on the ownership of gold implemented by the administration of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950), is a 5-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Taft–Hartley Act's imposition of an anti-communist oath on labor union leaders does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder in violation of Article One, Section 10 of the United States Constitution, and is not a "test oath" in violation of Article Six of the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.

United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Congress may not forbid the payment of a salary to a specific individual, as it would constitute an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the high court ruled that California's state statutes criminalizing record piracy did not violate the Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution.

Article I, § 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Import-Export Clause, prevents the states, without the consent of Congress, from imposing tariffs on imports and exports above what is necessary for their inspection laws and secures for the federal government the revenues from all tariffs on imports and exports. Several nineteenth century Supreme Court cases applied this clause to duties and imposts on interstate imports and exports. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and did not apply to imports and exports with other states, although this interpretation has been questioned by modern legal scholars.

State defaults in the United States are instances of states within the United States defaulting on their debt. The last instance of such a default took place during the Great Depression, in 1933, when the state of Arkansas defaulted on its highway bonds, which had long-lasting consequences for the state. Current U.S. bankruptcy law, an area governed by federal law, does not allow a state to file for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Code. Certain politicians and scholars have argued that the law should be amended to allow states to file for bankruptcy.

References

  1. ↑ Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 183 (1878).
  2. ↑ 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540 (1840).
  3. ↑ United States v. California , 332 U.S. 19 (1947).
  4. ↑ 313 U.S. 69 (1941).
  5. ↑ 313 U.S. at 78–79.
  6. ↑ Craig v. Missouri, 29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 410, 425 (1830); Byrne v. Missouri, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 40 (1834).
  7. ↑ Virginia Coupon Cases (Poindexter v. Greenhow), 114 U.S. 269 (1885); Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U.S. 567 (1886).
  8. ↑ Houston & Texas Central R.R. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 66 (1900).
  9. 1 2 Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 257 (1837).
  10. ↑ Darrington v. Bank of Alabama, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 12, 15 (1851); Curran v. Arkansas, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 304, 317 (1854).
  11. ↑ Woodruff v. Trapnall, 51 U.S. (10 How.) 190, 205 (1851).
  12. ↑ Gwin v. Breedlove, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 29, 38 (1844). See also Griffin v. Thompson, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 244 (1844).
  13. ↑ Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank, 262 U.S. 649, 659 (1923).
  14. ↑ Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 323 (1867); Klinger v. Missouri, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 257 (1872); Pierce v. Carskadon, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 234, 239 (1873).
  15. ↑ Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U.S. 716, 722–723 (1951). Cf. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36, 47 n.9 (1961).
  16. ↑ "Konigsberg v. State Bar".
  17. ↑ De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 160 (1960). Presumably, United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965), does not qualify this decision.
  18. ↑ See generally James W. Ely, Jr., The Guardian of Every Other Right (Oxford Univ. Press 1998).
  19. ↑ 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
  20. ↑ Wexler, Jay (Winter 2017). "The Contract Clause: A Constitutional History by James W. Ely (review)". Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 48 (3): 416. doi:10.1162/JINH_r_01179. S2CID   148964517 . Retrieved May 31, 2019.
  21. 1 2 3 Chemerinsky, Erwin (2002). Constitutional Law. New York, United States: Aspen Publishers. ISBN   0-7355-2428-9.
  22. ↑ See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977)
  23. ↑ 459 U.S. 400 (1983)
  24. ↑ 459 U.S. 400, 411-13 (1983)
  25. 1 2 431 U.S. 1 (1977)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.