National League of Cities v. Usery
National League of Cities v. Usery is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1976 that addressed the scope of Congress's authority under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) concerning state and local governments. The case arose after Congress amended the FLSA to impose minimum-wage and maximum-hour provisions on state and local entities, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in a narrow 5-4 decision. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, speaking for the majority, argued that such federal mandates infringed on states' sovereign powers protected by the Tenth Amendment, specifically the right of states to regulate their own employment terms.
The dissenting opinion, led by Justice William J. Brennan, criticized the decision as a significant limitation on federal power, particularly under the Commerce Clause. The ruling was seen as a revival of earlier interpretations of federalism, reminiscent of the dual federalism that characterized the relationship between state and federal governments before 1937. The case's implications continued to resonate in later Supreme Court decisions, which further explored the balance between state sovereignty and congressional authority, including in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority and United States v. Lopez. National League of Cities v. Usery remains a critical reference point in discussions of federalism and the constitutional limits of federal legislation over state affairs.
National League of Cities v. Usery
Date: March 2, 1976
Citation: 426 U.S. 833
Issues: Tenth Amendment; commerce clause
Significance: The Supreme Court resurrected and expanded the concept of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment when it held that Congress had no authority to require state and local governments to pay the minimum wage to public employees, but the Court overturned this decision in 1985.
In 1974 Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act so that its minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards were binding on state and local governments. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that the amendments unconstitutionally infringed on the sovereign powers reserved to the states in the Tenth Amendment. Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who had long been a proponent of states’ rights, argued that Congress could not use its powers over interstate commerce to regulate the “States as States,” and that “one undoubted attribute of state sovereignty” is the right of the states is to decide the salaries to be paid to state employees. In a dissent, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., denounced the decision as “a catastrophic judicial body blow at Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.” The Usery decision was of great symbolic importance because it appeared to resurrect notions of pre-1937 dual federalism.
In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), Justice Harry A. Blackmun switched his position, so that the justices voted five to four to reverse the Usery holding. The Court, however, resurrected the Tenth Amendment as a restraint on Congress in United States v. Lopez (1995) and Printz v. United States (1997).