Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
469 U.S. 528 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate the wages and hours of state and local government employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The determination of state immunity from federal regulation does not turn on a judicial appraisal of whether a governmental function is 'traditional,' as state sovereign interests are primarily protected by the procedural safeguards inherent in the structure of the federal system.
Facts:
- For many years, passenger transportation in San Antonio, Texas was provided by a private company.
- In 1959, the city of San Antonio purchased the private transit company and replaced it with a public authority known as the San Antonio Transit System (SATS).
- By 1970, SATS's financial position had deteriorated, and it began relying on substantial federal subsidies under the Urban Mass Transportation Act (UMTA) to continue operations.
- In 1978, the city transferred the system's facilities and equipment to the San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), a public mass-transit authority organized on a countywide basis.
- The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was amended in 1974 to extend its minimum wage and overtime provisions to virtually all state and local government employees.
- Following the 1976 Supreme Court decision in National League of Cities v. Usery, SATS informed its employees that it was no longer obligated to pay them overtime wages as required by the FLSA.
- In 1979, the Wage and Hour Administration of the Department of Labor issued an opinion stating that SAMTA's operations were not constitutionally immune from the application of the FLSA.
Procedural Posture:
- The San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA) filed an action against the Secretary of Labor in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, seeking a declaratory judgment that it was immune from the FLSA's overtime provisions.
- Joe G. Garcia, a SAMTA employee, separately sued SAMTA for overtime pay and was permitted to intervene as a defendant in SAMTA's lawsuit.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for SAMTA, concluding that operating a mass-transit system was a 'traditional governmental function' protected under National League of Cities.
- The Secretary of Labor and Garcia, as appellants, took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its recent decision in Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co.
- On remand, the District Court adhered to its original view and again entered judgment for SAMTA.
- The Secretary of Labor and Garcia, as appellants, again appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction and requested briefing on whether National League of Cities should be reconsidered.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Commerce Clause empower Congress to apply the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to a publicly owned and operated mass-transit system, contrary to the Tenth Amendment's protection of state sovereignty?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes. Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to apply the Fair Labor Standards Act to state and local governments. The test established in National League of Cities, which grants immunity to states performing 'traditional governmental functions,' is unworkable in practice and unsound in principle, and is therefore overruled. The court found that any attempt to draw boundaries between immune 'traditional' functions and non-immune 'proprietary' functions inevitably leads to arbitrary and inconsistent results, inviting unelected federal judges to make subjective policy decisions. Instead of judicially created limitations, the principal protection for state sovereignty lies in the structure of the federal government itself—specifically, the states' role in selecting the executive and legislative branches. This political process, not judicial review based on 'a priori' definitions of sovereignty, is the fundamental constitutional limitation on the Commerce Clause power.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No. The Court's decision effectively reduces the Tenth Amendment to 'meaningless rhetoric' and abandons the judiciary's role in maintaining the constitutionally designed federal system. Overruling National League of Cities disregards the principle of stare decisis and upsets the balance of power between the states and the federal government. The majority's reliance on the political process as the sole safeguard for states' rights is naive, as members of Congress represent national constituencies and the federal government has a natural tendency to expand its own power. By removing judicial review, the Court makes federal political officials the sole judges of the limits of their own power, a result inconsistent with Marbury v. Madison and the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
No. The majority abdicates the Court's constitutional responsibility to oversee the federal government's duty to respect the legitimate interests of the states. The true 'essence' of federalism is that states possess legitimate interests that the national government must respect, and the Tenth Amendment provides a legal core of state sovereignty that courts must enforce. The dramatic expansion of the Commerce Clause power in the 20th century creates a real risk that Congress will erase the diffusion of power central to the Republic's design. The Court should not abandon the effort to define affirmative limits on federal power but should instead weigh state autonomy as a critical factor when assessing how Congress exercises its authority over the states.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The fundamental principle of state immunity from federal overreach under the Commerce Clause, as established in National League of Cities, is correct. While the precise contours of the test may be debated, the judgment should be affirmed. The dissent expresses confidence that this principle will, in time, once again command the support of a majority of the Court.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark shift in American federalism, explicitly overruling National League of Cities v. Usery and removing the judicially-created doctrine of state immunity for 'traditional governmental functions.' The ruling significantly expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause, allowing for the regulation of nearly any state activity that could be subjected to general economic legislation. By shifting the protection for state sovereignty from the judiciary to the 'political safeguards of federalism,' the Court minimized its own role in policing the boundary between federal and state power, a position that would be challenged and partly reversed in later cases like New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.
Unlock the full brief for Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority