Maryland v. Wirtz

Supreme Court of the United States
1968 U.S. LEXIS 2981, 392 US 183, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1020 (1968)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Congress may, under its Commerce Clause power, extend the wage and hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to employees of state-operated institutions like schools and hospitals. A state cannot claim sovereign immunity from a generally applicable federal regulation of commerce, even when that regulation affects traditional governmental functions.

Facts:

In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which established a minimum wage and overtime pay for certain employees but explicitly excluded states and their political subdivisions from the definition of 'employer.'
In 1961, Congress amended the FLSA to cover all employees of any 'enterprise' engaged in commerce, rather than only those individual employees directly connected to interstate commerce.
In 1966, Congress again amended the FLSA, removing the exemption for states with respect to employees of public hospitals, schools, and certain other institutions.
As a result of the 1966 amendments, state-operated schools and hospitals became subject to the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements.
The State of Maryland and other states operated public schools and hospitals that were major consumers of goods, purchasing significant quantities of supplies and equipment from out-of-state sources.
For example, in a representative fiscal year, Maryland's public school system purchased 87% of its supplies from out-of-state, and its state hospitals made over 55% of their drug and equipment purchases from other states.

Procedural Posture:

The State of Maryland, later joined by 27 other states and one school district, filed suit against the Secretary of Labor in a three-judge U.S. District Court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the 1961 and 1966 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act were unconstitutional and requested an injunction to prevent their enforcement against the states.
The three-judge District Court, with one judge dissenting, declined to issue the injunction or declaratory judgment, upholding the amendments.
The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 Congress have the power under the Commerce Clause to apply the Fair Labor Standards Act, including its minimum wage and overtime provisions, to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan

Yes. Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to apply the FLSA to state-operated schools and hospitals. The extension of the FLSA through the 'enterprise concept' and its application to state entities are both valid exercises of federal legislative power. The 'enterprise concept' is constitutional because labor conditions of all employees within an enterprise, not just those directly touching commerce, can affect the enterprise's competitive position and can lead to labor disputes that burden interstate commerce. Furthermore, there is no general constitutional doctrine of state sovereignty that immunizes state activities from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. If a state engages in economic activities that are validly regulated by the Federal Government when performed by private persons, the state may also be forced to conform to that regulation, as established in United States v. California. The Court will not carve out exceptions to the commerce power for state-run enterprises that are indistinguishable from private businesses in their effect on commerce.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas

No. Applying the FLSA to state-run schools and hospitals is a serious invasion of state sovereignty protected by the Tenth Amendment and is inconsistent with constitutional federalism. Unlike prior cases where federal regulation had a minimal impact, this law directly disrupts the fiscal policy of the states by forcing them to raise taxes, curtail essential public services, or reallocate funds from other vital government functions. The Commerce Power is not without limits, and just as the federal taxing power cannot be used to destroy state sovereignty, neither should the commerce power. By allowing this level of intrusion, the Court permits the national government to potentially 'devour the essentials of state sovereignty' by controlling core state functions like education and public health.

Analysis:

This decision significantly broadened the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause power by explicitly rejecting the idea that state sovereignty creates an inherent limit on federal regulation of states' economic activities. By applying the rationale of United States v. California to labor law, the Court erased the distinction between 'governmental' and 'proprietary' state functions for the purpose of Commerce Clause analysis. This ruling set the precedent that states, when acting as employers in enterprises affecting commerce, are subject to the same regulations as private employers. The decision sparked a major constitutional debate that led to its temporary reversal in National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) and its ultimate reinstatement in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), highlighting the ongoing tension between federal power and states' rights.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Maryland v. Wirtz (1968)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"