Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Morrison Case (In Lopez, modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence has "…

- - - - Gonzalves Case
        
        Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
        
        Legal Question -Whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, § 8, of the Constitution .
        
        "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" its authority
        
        regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law
        
        Brief of the Case
        
        Respondents thereafter brought this action against the Attorney General of the United States and the head of the DEA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances
        
        "Injunction and Declaration" are Equitable Relief---> No Jury. Note that this not a 'Legal Remedy" which is a monetary relief ---> Right to Jury
        
        The District Court (Northern District of California) denied respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction
        
        Respondents could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their legal claims
        
        A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction
        
        Respondents had "demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the CSA (Controlled Substances Act, is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress Commerce Clause authority.
        
        "separate and distinct class of activities" when compared to "Wickerd v Filburn"
        
        " the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient's physician pursuant to valid California state law"
        
        Supreme Court grants writ of certiorari (certiorari is most often seen as the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to a lower court to review the lower court's judgment for legal error (reversible error) and review where no appeal is available as a matter of right)
        
        Question- Whether Congress' power to regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally.
        
        whether a "rational basis" for Congress to 'regulate'
        
        The Holding - The Supreme Court vacated the judgement of the Court of Appeals.
        
        When Congress decides that the " 'total incidence' " of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class
        
        Case law firmly establishes Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
        
        Congress decides that the " 'total incidence' " of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class
- - - - Brief of Case
        
        Arizona appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision
        
        The district court enjoin four provisions of the state law that
        
        authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States
        
        required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained
        
        created a state-law crime for working or seeking work while not authorized to do so
        
        created a state-law crime for being unlawfully present in the United States
        
        2.United States sought to stop the enforcement of S.B. 1070 in federal district court before the law could take effect.
        
        To address pressing issues related to the large number of aliens within its borders who do not have a lawful right to be in this country, the State of Arizona in 2010 enacted a statute called the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.
      - Legal Question -Whether federal law preempts and renders invalid (four separate) provisions of the state law.
        
        The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens
      - Problematic Sections in the State Law
        
        Section 3- makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor. (had no provision for pardon as a difference from federal law)
        
        What Preemption? --- >Field Preemption- The United States contends that this state enforcement mechanism intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for States to regulate. States may not enter, in any respect, an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself. Permitting the State to impose its own penalties for the federal offenses here would conflict with the careful framework Congress adopted.
        
        Section 5- makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State
        
        What preemption? ----> Obstacle Preemption - When there was no comprehensive federal program regulating the employment of unauthorized aliens, this Court found that a State had authority to pass its own laws on the subject. This would become an "obstacle" to the Federal govt's intent. Congress made a deliberate choice not to impose criminal penalties on aliens who seek, or engage in, unauthorized employment.
        
        Section 6 - authorizes officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe [the person] has committed any public offense that makes [him] removable from the United States.
        
        What Preemption? ----> Obstacle Preemption - Congress has rules, procedure and process for the arrest of an alien. State laws can not act differently.
        
        Section 2(B) provides that officers who conduct a stop, detention, or arrest must in some circumstances make efforts to verify the person's immigration status
        
        What Preemption? ----> No Preemption To enjoin § 2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that enforcement of the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. However, The State's verification requirements pose an obstacle to the framework Congress put in place. The first concern is the mandatory nature of the status checks. The second is the possibility of prolonged detention while the checks are being performed. It would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision.
      - Procedural History
        
        Preliminary injunction was given by the district court and the same was affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of the 9th Division
      - What is Pre emption
        
        The rule of law that if the federal government through Congress has enacted legislation on a subject matter it shall be controlling over state laws and/or preclude the state from enacting laws on the same subject if Congress has specifically stated it has "occupied the field."
        
        **the federal law has to be directly “on point,” or cover the same topic that the state or local law also covers.
        
        Demonstration of supremacy or is a supremacy clause in the US Constitution - Article 6, Clause 2
      - Reasons the court ruling that the Federal Government had "Pre-Emption" over the issue
        
        The issue concerns non citizens and their treatment in sovereign US territory. This can not have 50 different approaches the federal government needs to be allowed a singular approach
        
        The treatment of non citizens is a matter of reputation for the US as a whole. "It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States"
        
        The Federal Government has extensive and complex legal structures to address the status of aliens. This includes requiring aliens to register with the Federal Govt. on their entry, it also includes a list of nations from which aliens are or are not permitted entry
        
        Procedures laid down by the federal laws are largely civil and not criminal in nature
        
        State law must give was to Federal Law
        
        (I) The States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance.
        
        (II) State laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law. This includes cases where “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility and those instances where the challenged state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”