Thursday, April 23, 2015

Treaties and Commandeering

by Michael Dorf

Yesterday's NY Times carried a story that, I imagine, was baffling to most readers. It noted that a committee of the Idaho legislature had voted to kill (for now) legislation designed to bring that state into line with provisions of a multilateral treaty governing the transnational enforcement of child support obligations. The U.S. signed the treaty in 2007 but full ratification depends on the enactment of legislation in all 50 states.

To which the moderately well educated reader might well have reacted "huh? I thought the Senate gave its consent to treaties in order for them to become binding." The very well educated lawyer, however, will understand what's going on here. The treaty imposes affirmative implementation obligations on the governmental authorities in each signatory nation, which with respect to family law in the U.S. means state governments. But under the Supreme Court's "anti-commandeering" doctrine as set forth in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, Congress cannot force a state to enact or enforce federal law. Congress can "bribe" the states to do so by attaching strings to federal funds--so long as those conditions are not too coercive. And as noted in the Times story, that's what the federal government has done here, but, as with the Medicaid funding, it appears that anti-Washington don't-tell-us-what-to-do sentiment can sometimes trump self-interest on the part of the states. (Note, however, that in this instance it's not anti-Obama sentiment, as the Bush II Administration signed the treaty.)

Here I want to briefly reflect on the wisdom of applying the anti-commandeering doctrine to treaties. I'll begin by saying that I don't like the anti-commandeering doctrine in any context. It strikes me that the dissenters were right in New York and Printz. Congress had the power to "commandeer" under the Articles of Confederation; nothing in the Constitution expressly forbids that means to Congress; in general the Constitution gave Congress more, not fewer, powers than Congress enjoyed under the Articles; and therefore, in my view if Congress is regulating in the area of one of its enumerated powers, then measures that commandeer the states are (absent some other problem) necessary and proper to the exercise of that power.

But assuming that the anti-commandeering rules properly apply to exercises of most of Congress's powers, are there reasons to suppose that they don't apply to self-executing treaties or to statutes that implement non-self-executing treaties? Although some commentators have argued that Congress (or in the case of a self-executing treaty, the President plus 2/3 of the Senate) should have the power to commandeer pursuant to a treaty, I think the logic of New York and Printz pretty much precludes this result. If commandeering is not a necessary and proper means of carrying out Art. I, Sec. 8 powers, it's hard to see why it would be necessary and proper to carrying out a treaty.

That's unfortunate because modern multilateral treaties (from which the U.S. and its nationals derive reciprocal benefits) sometimes call for actions that, in our federal system, can only be taken at the state level.

Or maybe not. Under Missouri v. Hollanda treaty may give Congress powers it would otherwise lack, i.e., powers that are otherwise reserved to the states. Thus, one could imagine that a somewhat different version of the Child Support treaty could empower Congress to enact national legislation and take federal executive action with respect to child support, even though there is no enumerated federal power governing family law. (I say this would only arise under a different version of the treaty, because the actual treaty allows for action at the state level in federal nation-states.)

Would the Supreme Court go for that? I doubt it. Although the Court's ruling in Bond v. United States last year avoided the question of whether, and to what extent, Holland is good law, I have difficulty imagining five Justices of the current Court thinking that a treaty could empower Congress to create federal family law, absent some Article I, Sec. 8 power. (The power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce would authorize some aspects of federal law governing child support, but probably not a comprehensive code.)

The irony here is that the only reason that Congress (or in the case of a self-executing treaty, the President and the Senate) would need to resort to the radical step of federalizing family law is that the Court itself has cut off commandeering as an option. That observation is a variation of the dissenters' point in the anti-commandeering cases: Commandeering is often less intrusive of the prerogatives of the states than federalization, which is why subsidiarity is seen as a protection for state sovereignty in Germany and the EU.

7 comments:

Joe said...

Breyer has written about subsidiarity & he writing a new book on the increasingly global scope of the work of Supreme Court.

Anyway, the lengths of this penumbra and emanation (and I don't say that totally sarcastic -- don't think the idea is wrong) of the text is rather problematic in the treaty context.

I think the concern here is that modern day international law involves human rights that can be pretty broad, like some right of basic medical care or something.

But, if commandeering is wrong and Printz applied it to a rather trivial matter (a temporary background check regime that allowed officials to delay if they had more important things to do), where is the stopping point?

If a treaty, e.g., involved treatment of ambassadors or basic peace term details, could states blithely ignore them if an "affirmative obligation" of some sort was required? Guess so.

Part of being a nation under the Constitution instead of a collection of states under the Articles should be that states have certain basic obligations such not having a choice to avoid treaty obligations that are the law of the land.

egarber said...

Stupid question from a non-lawyer:

Is enforcing something like pollution standards against state facilities potentially considered commandeering or something like it? Or does the doctrine only apply when it comes to coercing a state to enforce something as an "arm" of the federal government?

Or put another way, are pollution standards directly enforced against a state-owned facility like with any private party, or is compliance instead tied to some sort of federal funding?

Joe said...

It is my understanding that states can be required in various respects to follow federal rules that also apply to private employees. Thus, minimum wage rules apply both to state and private employees.

They cannot be required to pass legislation to enforce federal law (such as the details of family law treaty obligations) nor can state employees be used to help carry out federal law (including doing background checks of gun dealers).

I gather though that if some appropriate federal regulation involving guns were past that they would apply to state governments too. So, if private purchasers had to do a background check for guns in interstate commerce, state purchasers (such as police departments) would as well.

The application of these rules might get complicated, including regarding damages (suing states has special rules). But, I think in a basic way, that's right.

egarber said...

Joe, thanks for the thoughtful response.

Shijun Lin said...

shijun 5.20
kids lebron james shoes
jordan shoes
abercrombie fitch
jordan retro 5
abercrombie
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
ray ban wayfarer
replica watches
michael kors
cheap lebron james shoes
pandora rings
tory burch outlet online
timberland outlet
ralph lauren outlet
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
chaenl bags
coach outlet online
fitflops
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
ray ban aviators
michael kors
soccer jerseys
coach outlet
michael kors uk
coach outlet store online
michael kors outlet
lebron 12
oakley store
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
kate spade
concord 11s
tods sale

chenlina said...

chenlina20150604
michael kors outlet
lululemon
michael kors outlet
jordan 13 shoes
air max uk
michael kors
hollister clothing
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
ray ban wayfarer
hollister clothing
gucci bags
coach outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
ray ban outlet
coach outlet
michael kors
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet online
lv outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
nike air max
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglass
prada uk
gucci shoes
louis vuitton
mont blanc
www.louisvuitton.com
abercrombie store
ralph lauren sale
jordan 11 snakeskin
oakley outlet
louis vuitton
ray ban glasses
michael kors outlet
chanel uk
coach factory outlet

Guo Guo said...

guowenhao20150605
mcm bags
new york jets jerseys
tory burch outlet online
timberland shoes
roshe run men
lacoste shirts
oakley sunglasses
boston celtics jersey
chanel handbags
swarovski crystal
hermes birkin
iphone 6 plus cases
louis vuitton outlet
prada outlet
michael kors handbags
burberry outlet online
abercrombie and fitch
tods shoes
abercrombie
converse all star
lacoste outlet
denver broncos jerseys
air jordan shoes
adidas outlet
adidas shoes
nike running shoes
marc jacobs outlet
seattle seahawks jerseys
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
kate spade handbags
ray ban sunglasses
hermes belt
insanity
converse shoes
mcm handbags
lebron james shoes
gucci outlet
calvin klein underwear
louis vuitton outlet