Master this deck with 42 terms through effective study methods.
No description available
sovereign immunity doctrine
without waiver or congressional abrogation, states are immune from private suits for monetary damages in federal court
when states sue each other, when the federal government sues states, for local govts, or for appealing state court judgments to SCOTUS
you cannot sue a state in fed court, but you can sue the relevant state officer in their official capacity for prospective relief or sue the officer personally for retrospective relief
if the statute is valid under § 5 of 14th amendment and the statute clearly expresses Congress's intent to abrogate
anti-commandeering principle
state and local governments cannot be forced to enact federal regulatory programs
when states act as sovereigns, not market participants
general welfare
punitive
financial liability triggered by a lawful act, not a violation
a sanction for violating a rule
Congress exclusivity
for the general welfare, unambiguous, related to the federal interests of the program, not independently unconstitutional, or coercive
congressional power to enforce 14th amendment
the means adopted by congress must be congruent and proportional to the constitutional injury it seeks to prevent/remedy
state action and does NOT apply to private conduct
neutral, generally applicable laws
permits congress to enact laws addressing slavery or racial discrimination of any kind
Can regulate private and public actors
Allow Congress to enact statutes targeting racially discriminatory electoral effects
Its current burdens must be justified by current needs, and Its mechanism for singling out specific jx must be sufficiently related to the problem it targets
state/local govt may not either directly regulate/tax fed gov or its instrumentalities, or enact laws that discriminate against the federal gov
absent express congressional authorization, states may not enact regulations/taxes that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce
it is virtually per se invalid and will only be constitutional if - It furthers a legitimate governmental interest and - The state has no practicable, non-discriminatory alternative to pursue that interest
it will violate the commerce clause if it places undue burden on interstate commerce
unconstitutional per se
- Congress has expressly authorized the kind of state law at issue - When state/local law discriminates in favor of the govt itself, - When state//local gov acts as a market participant
States can impose burdens on IC within the market in which it is a participant
(a) state regulation of activities that congress could regulate under the commerce clause but that (b) congress chose not to regulate
when the state buys or sells goods or services instead of regulating
Laws that favor the gov in areas of traditional gov activity but treat every private business exactly the same do not discriminate against interstate commerce → only laws that favor in-state, PRIVATE actors at the expense of out-of-state actors are discriminatory
Where a statute advances a legitimate, local public interest and its effects are only incidental on interstate commerce, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on commerce is clearly excessive in relation to local benefits
prohibits states from imposing substantially different treatment on non-residents without a valid, independent reason
Is there a substantial reason for difference beyond citizenship? Does degree of discrimination fit the reason?
no only humans
Yes
out of state residents
No
protects citizens' rights associated with a national government; primarily the right to travel
Requires states to respect the court judgments and substantive laws of other states
You must enforce judgments from another state unless the state clearly lacked jurisdiction