Also known as:National League of Cities v. Usery · NLC v. Usery
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An immunity doctrine that shielded states from federal Commerce Clause regulation of traditional governmental functions. The doctrine required courts to distinguish protected state activities from those subject to federal power. It was later rejected because the distinction proved unworkable and states receive protection through the political process.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
State IT Consolidation Challenge
The State of Wisconsin operates a central administrative office that consolidates information technology, accounting, and human resources services for every state agency. A federal directive changes the maximum hours state employees may work per week before overtime is required and applies the same standard to state agencies and private employers alike. Wisconsin sues to enjoin enforcement, arguing that determining internal workloads and pay for its consolidated civil-service workforce is a core sovereign function. The court upholds the directive because states find protection through their senators and representatives rather than judicial limits on federal power.
Hospital Authority Overtime Dispute
The City of Colorado Springs created a hospital authority under state statute to operate public clinics delivering emergency care to uninsured residents. The authority employs more than 200 nurses who work rotating shifts and bills private insurers and Medicare for services. A federal labor official notifies the authority that the nurses are entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The authority seeks a declaratory judgment that the rules do not apply because operating taxpayer-funded public health clinics is a traditional governmental function.
National League of Cities v. Usery426 U.S. 833 (1976)
The original Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 1938 specifically excluded the States and their political sub-divisions from its coverage. Amendments in 1961 extended coverage to employees of enterprises engaged in commerce, and 1966 amendments removed the exemption for employees of state hospitals, institutions, and schools. The Supreme Court upheld the 1966 amendments in Maryland v. Wirtz in 1968.
In 1974, Congress amended the Act to include a public agency within the definition of employer and to deem employees of public agencies as engaged in commerce. These amendments applied the Act's requirements to almost all public employees of the States and their subdivisions, subject only to the general exemption for executive, administrative, or professional personnel and certain officeholders. Appellants consisting of the National League of Cities, numerous States, and municipalities challenged these amendments.
The appellants alleged in their complaint that compliance would impose significant additional costs, including $938,000 per year for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for police and fire protection, $2.5 million annually for Arizona, and between $8 million and $16 million for California. They further claimed that the overtime provisions would force reductions in training programs, such as shortening the California Highway Patrol academy from 2,080 to 960 hours, and curtail affirmative action and internship programs in cities like Inglewood and Clovis.
A three-judge district court was convened and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, stating that it was bound by Maryland v. Wirtz despite finding the contentions substantial. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction, heard initial argument in 1975, reargued the case in March 1976, and issued its decision on June 24, 1976.
State A operates a prison industries factory producing license plates that begins selling surplus products to private trucking companies. Federal regulators apply Fair Labor Standards Act overtime rules to its production employees. The factory contests the rules, asserting that prison industries remain core state functions traditionally insulated from federal wage-and-hour regulation. The court applies the rules because the commercial sales place the activity within uniform federal authority.
United States v. Morrison529 U.S. 598 (2000)
In September 1994 Christy Brzonkala enrolled as a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Within thirty minutes of meeting fellow students Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both members of the varsity football team, Brzonkala alleges that the two men assaulted and repeatedly raped her. Morrison allegedly told Brzonkala after the attack that she had better not have any diseases. He later announced in a dormitory dining room that he liked to get girls drunk and made other vulgar remarks about women.
Brzonkala became severely emotionally disturbed and depressed after the incident. She sought assistance from a university psychiatrist who prescribed antidepressant medication. She stopped attending classes and withdrew from the university. In early 1995 she filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under the university's Sexual Assault Policy. Virginia Tech conducted a hearing under its Sexual Assault Policy and a second hearing under its Abusive Conduct Policy. The first found Morrison guilty of sexual assault and suspended him for two semesters. The second hearing again found him guilty but changed the offense description to using abusive language. University officials later set aside the punishment.
In December 1995 Brzonkala sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Her complaint alleged that the attack violated 42 U.S.C. §13981, the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which creates a federal cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against persons who commit crimes of violence motivated by gender. She also asserted Title IX claims against the university.
The district court dismissed the Title IX claims for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed the §13981 claim on the ground that Congress lacked authority to enact the provision under either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed in part, but the en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact §13981.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the constitutionality of the civil remedy provision.
The State of North Dakota operates a public university system that delivers online degree programs nationwide and employs hundreds of part-time adjunct instructors under uniform workload policies. A federal education labor division enforces expanded overtime eligibility rules for part-time faculty at both public and private institutions. The university board refuses compliance, claiming decisions on adjunct staffing are central to sovereign authority over public higher education. An adjunct instructor sues for overtime pay.
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jagdish Rai Chadha462 U.S. 919, 954 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2785 n. 16, 77 L.Ed.2d 317
In 1966 Jagdish Rai Chadha, an East Indian born in Kenya who held a British passport, was lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa that expired on June 30, 1972. In October 1973, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed Chadha that he had remained longer than permitted and was therefore deportable. Chadha conceded deportability but applied for suspension under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
On June 25, 1974, an Immigration Judge acting on behalf of the Attorney General suspended Chadha's deportation and adjusted his status to permanent resident after finding that he satisfied the statutory criteria of seven years' continuous presence, good moral character, and extreme hardship. A report of the suspension was transmitted to Congress as required by the Act.
On December 16, 1975, the House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the suspension for Chadha and five other aliens on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly as to hardship.
Pursuant to the House resolution, the Immigration Judge reopened the deportation proceedings. Chadha moved to terminate them on constitutional grounds, but the Immigration Judge ruled that he lacked authority to declare the resolution unconstitutional and ordered Chadha deported. Chadha appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which likewise held that it had no authority to pass on the constitutionality of the resolution and dismissed the appeal.
Chadha then filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeared and urged the court to hold the House resolution unconstitutional. After inviting briefs from the Senate and House as amici curiae, the Court of Appeals held the resolution unconstitutional because it was a legislative act that failed to satisfy the requirements of Article I, sections 1 and 7, and set aside the deportation order.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the consolidated cases to address the constitutional question.
Urban Manufacturing operates a large factory producing auto parts in State A. Congress enacts a manufacturing oversight program directing the state environmental agency to conduct federally designed inspections of all local factories using state personnel and budgets. Urban Manufacturing and the state environmental director sue the federal administrator seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
United States v. Lopez514 U.S. 549 (1995)
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises.
The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools.
The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release.
Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Minnesota adopts a functional definition of public accommodations that reaches various forms of public quasi-commercial conduct. A private club challenges enforcement of state antidiscrimination laws against its membership policies. The club argues that the laws impermissibly burden its associational rights. State officials defend the laws as reflecting the changing nature of the American economy and the importance of removing barriers to economic advancement.
Roberts v. United States Jaycees468 U.S. 609 (1984)
In 1920, the United States Jaycees was formed as a nonprofit membership corporation incorporated in Missouri with its national headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The organization's bylaws established regular membership limited to young men aged 18 to 35, with associate membership open to women and older men who could not vote or hold office. By 1981, it had grown to about 295,000 members across 7,400 local chapters affiliated with 51 state organizations.
Beginning in 1974 and 1975, the Minneapolis and St. Paul chapters admitted women as regular members, prompting the national organization to impose sanctions such as denying eligibility for offices and awards and refusing to count their votes at conventions. In December 1978, the national president notified the chapters that revocation of their charters would be considered at an upcoming board meeting.
Shortly thereafter, chapter members filed discrimination charges with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights alleging violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing examiner found the Jaycees to be a place of public accommodation and ordered it to cease discriminating on the basis of sex. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the determination that the organization constituted a public business facility under the Act.
The Jaycees then renewed its federal lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Minnesota against state officials, claiming that enforcement of the Act infringed constitutional rights. After trial, the District Court ruled for the state officials, but the Eighth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted review of the case.
What standard did National League of Cities use to determine state immunity from federal regulation?
The doctrine protected states from federal Commerce Clause regulation of traditional governmental functions. Courts were required to distinguish protected state activities from those subject to federal power. The standard was later rejected as unworkable.
Supporting sources
Why was the National League of Cities doctrine overruled?
The traditional governmental functions test proved incoherent and inconsistent because courts could not sensibly explain why some functions qualified for immunity while others did not. States receive their primary protection from inappropriate federal regulation through participation in the federal political process rather than through judicially defined limits.
Supporting sources
How does Garcia affect application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to state employees?
Congress may extend the Fair Labor Standards Act to state and local governments when it regulates states and private entities alike. Courts defer to Congress rather than attempting to carve out exemptions for particular state functions. The political process supplies the safeguard for state interests.
Supporting sources
National League of Cities v. Usery
, 426 U. S. 833 (1976), overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority , 469 U. S. 528 (1985). In response to the dissent's warnings that the Court was powerless to…