Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council | |
---|---|
Argued March 22, 2000 Decided June 19, 2000 | |
Full case name | Stephen P. Crosby, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts, et al. v. National Foreign Trade Council |
Citations | 530 U.S. 363 ( more ) 120 S. Ct. 2288; 147 L. Ed. 2d 352; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 4153 |
Case history | |
Prior | Natl. Foreign Trade Council v. Baker, 26 F. Supp. 2d 287 (D. Mass. 1998); affirmed sub. nom., Nat'l Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999); cert. granted, 528 U.S. 1018(1999). |
Holding | |
The state Act is preempted and its application unconstitutional, under the Supremacy Clause. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Souter, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. VI |
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council , 530 U.S. 363 (2000), was a unanimous case in which the Supreme Court of the United States used the federal preemption doctrine to strike down the Massachusetts Burma Law, a law that effectively prohibited Massachusetts' governmental agencies from buying goods and services from companies conducting business with Myanmar (Burma), essentially a secondary boycott. [1] The Massachusetts Burma Law was modeled after similar legislation that had targeted the apartheid regime of South Africa.
The Court reasoned that since the United States Congress passed a law imposing sanctions on Myanmar, the Massachusetts law "undermines the intended purpose and 'natural effect' of at least three provisions of the federal Act, that is, its delegation of effective discretion to the President to control economic sanctions against Burma, its limitation of sanctions solely to United States persons and new investment, and its directive to the President to proceed diplomatically in developing a comprehensive, multilateral strategy towards Burma." [2]
The federal government of the United States is the common government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, comprising 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district of Washington, D.C., where the majority of the federal government is based.
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.
In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess. Since the 1940s, the term "states' rights" has often been considered a loaded term or dog whistle because of its use in opposition to federally-mandated racial desegregation and, more recently, same-sex marriage and reproductive rights.
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.
In the United States, federalism is the constitutional division of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and toward the national government. The progression of federalism includes dual, cooperative, and New Federalism.
Federalist No. 11 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the eleventh of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in The Independent Journal on November 23, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It is titled "The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy".
Dual federalism, also known as layer-cake federalism or divided sovereignty, is a political arrangement in which power is divided between the federal and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the federal government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism, in which federal and state governments collaborate on policy.
Cooperative federalism, also known as marble-cake federalism, is defined as a flexible relationship between the federal and state governments in which both work together on a variety of issues and programs.
Sandra Lea Lynch is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. She is the first woman to serve on that court. Lynch served as chief judge of the First Circuit from 2008 to 2015.
The Massachusetts Burma Law was a law enacted in 1996 by the Massachusetts General Court limiting state entities from purchasing services from companies doing business with Myanmar (Burma). This law was enacted three months before the introduction of federal sanctions on trade with Burma.
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the federal government may not require states to “take title” to radioactive waste through the "Take Title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which the Court found to exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Court permitted the federal government to induce shifts in state waste policy through other means.
Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning the Militia Clauses of Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, in which the court held that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of the governor of the affected state or the declaration of a national emergency. The plaintiff was Rudy Perpich, governor of Minnesota at the time.
In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law. The rules of preemption seek to restrict it to only where it is explicit or necessary. In the course of adjudicating cases, the issue of preemption may be heard in either state or federal court.
Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1871), was a United States Supreme Court case that questioned the United States Federal government's ability to impose a tax upon the "salary of a judicial officer of the State." Even though this particular case favors state employees' rights, it was overruled in 1939 by Graves v. New York, where the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax imposed by the State of New York on an employee of the Federal Home Owners Load Corporation was constitutional, since there was no requirement of immunity contained in the Constitution or in any act of Congress. Collector is still important to discussions of constitutional law because of Judge Nelson's statement of the doctrine of dual federalism in the case's opinion.
The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.
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. It is the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court in that case to exercise the power of judicial review: the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.
POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that a statutory private right of action under the Lanham Act is not precluded by regulatory provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines. The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines. The decision affirmed the police powers of the individual states, as well as the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.