Gregory v. Ashcroft

Last updated
Gregory v. Ashcroft
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 18, 1991
Decided June 20, 1991
Full case nameGregory et al., Judges v. Ashcroft, Governor of Missouri
Citations501 U.S. 452 ( more )
Holding
Missouri's requirement that its judges retire by age 70 violates neither the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 nor the Equal Protection Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter; White, Stevens (in part)
Concur/dissentWhite, joined by Stevens
DissentBlackmun, joined by Marshall
Laws applied
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Equal Protection Clause

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) was a U.S. Supreme Court case. It concerned a provision in the Missouri state constitution that required state judges to retire at the age of 70, and the court was asked to consider whether it conflicted with the 1967 federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The provision was upheld, with the case being one of several Supreme Court decisions supporting the principle that "ambiguous language will not be interpreted to intrude on areas of traditional state authority or important state governmental functions". [1]

Contents

Facts

Two Missouri state judges brought suit against John D. Ashcroft, the Governor of Missouri, alleging a provision of the Missouri state constitution, Article V, § 26, violated both the ADEA and the Equal Protection Clause.[ citation needed ] The provision required all non-municipal state judges to retire at the age of seventy. [2] The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the governor’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that Missouri's appointed judges were not protected by the ADEA because they were "appointees ... 'on a policymaking level'" and were therefore excluded from the Act's definition of "employee". The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the policymaking distinction, further holding that the provision did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because there was a rational basis for distinguishing judges who had reached the age of seventy from those who had not. [3] The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on both the ADEA and equal protection questions.

Judgment

In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the Missouri constitutional provision did not violate federal statute or the Equal Protection Clause. [4] Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, held that under the principles of federalism and dual sovereignty, the Supremacy Clause allows Congress to impose its will on the states, but only when acting under a Constitutionally-delegated power. The Court applied the 'plain statement' rule, the idea that Congress should make its intention 'clear and manifest' if it intends to alter the federal-state balance of power and pre-empt the historic powers of the states. [5] The opinion recognized the authority of the people of the states to determine the qualifications of their most important government officials as a power that lies at 'the heart of representative government'. The Court found that state judges were not clearly 'employees' as defined by the ADEA (29 U.S.C. § 630(f)) and concluded that the statute did not plainly cover appointed state judges. [2] The Court also found a rational basis for the retirement age, based in Missouri citizens' interest in maintaining a judiciary fully capable of performing the demanding tasks that judges must perform and the fact that physical and mental capacity sometimes diminishes with age.

Justice White, with Justice Stevens joining, concurred in part and dissented in part. The concurrence found the majority's federalism concerns irrelevant to the "actual conflict" preemption, arguing that the cases cited for the plain statement rule involved issues of whether Congress intended for legislation to apply to states at all. The concurrence further argued that the majority's decision directly contravened the decisions in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) and South Carolina v. Baker (1988). The concurrence agreed with the majority judgment because it found that the state judges were not included in the ADEA's definition of 'employee'.

Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented, [2] on the grounds that an appointed state judge is an "appointee on the policymaking level". They would instead have "deferred to the EEOC's interpretation of the statute", [2] which "regarded the state judges as covered under the ADEA". [2]

Legacy

The holding in Gregory v. Ashcroft imposed a stricter burden on Congress to state clearly its intent to extend federal statutes to state and local governmental functions. This decision relied on the 'plain statement' rule, but the Supreme Court required more than an expression of Congress's clear and unequivocal intent to extend federal regulation to the states; the majority's interpretation of the rule required Congress to state clearly and specifically its intention to extend the ADEA to appointed state judges in particular. [6]

Related Research Articles

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

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Materials which the plaintiffs had worked with and were ready to republish were now unavailable due to copyright restrictions.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives.". The court had previously held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that districting claims over racial discrimination could be brought under the Fifteenth Amendment.

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

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 only procedural protections are present or the rights 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.

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duty that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judges and lawyers agree on the meaning of the clause with respect to the recognition of judgments rendered by one state in the courts of another. Barring exceptional circumstances, one state must enforce a judgment by a court in another, unless that court lacked jurisdiction, even if the enforcing court otherwise disagrees with the result. At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of the Constitution has a minimal impact on a court's choice of law decision provided that no state’s sovereignty is infringed, although this Clause of the Constitution was once interpreted to have greater impact.

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to the state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. Along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, this clause became part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, commonly referred to as assisted suicide. It was the first major case heard by the Roberts Court under the new Chief Justice of the United States.

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose ruling had the same effect as that of the Eighth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995), was a landmark case about separation of powers in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress may not retroactively require federal courts to reopen final judgments. Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia asserted that such action amounted to an unauthorized encroachment by Congress upon the powers of the judiciary and therefore violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Smith v. Turner; Norris v. Boston, 48 U.S. 283 (1849), were two similar cases, argued together before the United States Supreme Court, which decided 5–4 that states do not have the right to impose a tax that is determined by the number of passengers of a designated category on board a ship and/or disembarking into the State. The cases are sometimes called the Passenger Case or Passenger Cases.

In American law, the clear statement rule is a guideline for statutory construction, instructing courts to not interpret a statute in a way that will have particular consequences unless the statute makes unmistakably clear its intent to achieve that result. According to law professor William Popkin, such rules "insist that a particular result can be achieved only if the text…says so in no uncertain terms."

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 delegated to it by the Constitution.

Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided the characteristics of inferior officers of the United States for the purposes of the Appointments Clause.

United States v. Vaello Madero, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the constitutionality of the exclusion of United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income program. In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled that as Congress had been granted broad oversight of United States territories by Article Four of the United States Constitution, the exclusion of the territories by Congress from programs like Supplemental Security Income did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ John Fitzgerald Duffy and Michael E. Herz, A Guide to Judicial and Political Review of Federal Agencies (American Bar Association, 2005), p. 74, ISBN 1590314832.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 David Andrew Schultz, Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution (Facts On File, 2010), p. 329.
  3. ↑ "GREGORY v. ASHCROFT 898 F.2d 598 8th Cir". Casemine. Retrieved November 7, 2021.
  4. ↑ "Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991)". Justia. Retrieved November 7, 2021.
  5. ↑ "GREGORY v. ASHCROFT 501 U.S. 452 (1991)". encyclopedia.com. Retrieved November 8, 2021.
  6. ↑ "Gregory v. Ashcroft: The Plain Statement Rule and Judicial Supervision of Federal-State Relations". North Carolina Law Review. Retrieved November 8, 2021.
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.