Docstoc

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolotan Transit Authority Case Brief

Document Sample
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolotan Transit Authority Case Brief Powered By Docstoc
					Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 469 U.S. 528 (1985)


  

 

The San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), claimed it was exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). o SAMTA argued that it was providing a traditional governmental function, which exempted it from Federal controls according to the doctrine of federalism established in National League of Cities v. Usery.  National League of Cities v. Usery, had held that such regulation of the activities of state and local governments in areas of traditional governmental functions would violate the 10th Amendment. o It was also argued that the money that the States have in their treasury will be significantly drained by having to raise their wages. That effects the general population with regards to higher taxes, less public funding for services and infrastructure, etc. Garcia, an employee of SAMTA, sued for overtime pay under the FLSA. Trial Court found for SAMTA. Garcia appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Trial Court for reconsideration based on their ruling in United Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co. o In United Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co. the Court had held that some transit operations were not a traditional function of government The Trial Court once again found for SAMTA. Garcia again appealed to the US Supreme Court, which took the case. The US Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) held that SAMTA was subject to Congressional legislation under the Interstate Commerce Clause. o The Court felt that the guiding principles of federalism established in National League of Cities v. Usery were unworkable.

Project Wonderful - Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0



The Court found that rules based on the subjective determination of integral or traditional governmental functions provided little or no guidance in determining the boundaries of Federal and State power.  This gives an unelected Federal judiciary the ability to make decisions about which State policies it favors and which it dislikes. o The Court argued that the structure of the Federal system itself, rather than any discrete limitations on Federal authority, protected State sovereignty. This case represents in many ways the high-water mark for the Court's expansive reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause to favor centralized national government as opposed to the more decentralized version of federalism, in which the 10th Amendment limits the authority of the Federal government.

o


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Stats:
views:984
posted:1/29/2008
language:English
pages:2