Legal environment of business

Please illustrate the facts, issue, reasons, and conclusion of Case 5-2 on P141

ruled that the Violence Against Women Act, which Congress justified through its Commerce Clause power, was unconstitutional. Despite the rulings in Lopez and Morrison, however, the following case, Gonzales v. Raich, shows that the Court may not be categorically opposed to an expansion of congressional power through the Commerce Clause. CASE 5-2 The similarities between this case and Wickard are respondents do not sell marijuana; and (3) the Wickard striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are record made it clear that the aggregate production of cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible com- wheat for use on farms had a significant impact on modity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, market prices. Those differences, though factually acinterstate market. Just as the Agricultural Adjustment curate, do not diminish the precedential force of this CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT THE LAW Analogies are a standard method for creating a link between the case at hand and legal precedent. Wickard v. Filburn is a long-established precedent. The court's reasoning in Case 5-2 is that the use of medical marijuana by the plaintiffs is sufficiently similar to the facts in Wickard to rely on this precedent. 1. What are the similarities between the case at hand and Wickard? Clue: Try to make a large list of similarities. Later, after you have made a large list, think about the logic the analogy is trying to support. Eliminate those similarities that do not assist that logic because they are not relevant to an assessment of the quality of the analogy. 2. Are there significant differences that the Court ignores or downplays? Clue: First think about the purpose this analogy is serving. Then think about the differences in the facts for this case and the facts for Wickard. CH APT E R 5 * The Constitution for B Although the current Supreme Court seems to prefer greater regulatory power for states, Gonzales v. Raich and another recent case stand as examples in which the Supreme Court upheld congressional acts on the basis of the Commerce Clause. In Pierce County v. Guillen, 11 the Supreme Court held that the Hazard Elimination Program was a valid exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. This program provided funding to state and local governments to improve conditions of some of their most unsafe roads. To receive federal funding, however, state and local governments were required to regularly acquire information about potential road hazards. The state and local governments were reluctant to avail themselves of the program for fear that the information they acquired to receive funding would be used against them in lawsuits based on negligence. To alleviate these fears, Congress amended the program, allowing state and local governments to conduct engineering surveys without publicly disseminating the acquired information, even for discovery purposes in trials. Following his spouse's death in an automobile accident, Ignacio Guillen sued Pierce County and sought information related to previous accidents at the intersection where his wife died. The county argued that such information was protected under the provisions of the Hazard Elimination Program. Reversing the appellate court's holding that Congress exceeded its powers when amending the act, the Supreme Court concluded that the amended act was valid under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court reasoned that Congress had a significant interest in assisting local and state governments in improving safety in the channels of interstate commerce, the interstate highways. 'The Court validated Congress's belief that state and local governments would be more likely to collect relevant and accurate information about potential road hazards if those governments would not be required to provide such information in discovery. Hence, the Supreme Court held that the amended act of Congress was valid on the basis of the Commerce Clause. Despite the Court's ruling in Pierce County v. Guillen, many Supreme Court commentators had thought that the Court's turn toward a more restrictive interpretation of the Commerce Clause would lead the Court to rule that Congress cannot justify regulating states' decisions regarding medical marijuana through the Commerce Clause. Instead, Justice Stevens distinguished Gonzales v. Raich from United States v. Lopez and Brzonkala v. Morrison, explaining that the federal regulations at issue in Lopez and Morrison were not related to economic activity, even understood broadly, and thus in both cases Congress had overstepped its bounds. Raich's activities, however, did involve economic activity, even if it is the economic activity of an illegal, controlled substance. Exhibit 5-3 offers a summary of a number of Commerce Clause cases the Supreme Court has decided since Lopez. One inference a person could draw after examining the cases in Exhibit 53 is that the Court is willing to limit congressional power but not necessarily in every instance where such restriction is possible. THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS A RESTRICTION ON STATE AUTHORITY Because the Commerce Clause grants authority to regulate commerce to the federal government, a conflict arises over the extent to which granting such authority to the federal government restricts the states' authority to regulate commerce. 'The courts have attempted to resolve the conflict over the impact of the Commerce Clause on state regulation by distinguishing between regulations of commerce and regulations under the state police power. Police power means the residual powers retained by the state to enact legislation to safeguard the health and welfare of its citizenry. When the courts perceived state laws to be attempts to regulate interstate 11537U.S.129(2003) 144 P A R T O N E - What is the Legal Environment of Business? EXHIBIT 5-3 MODERN SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE commerce, these laws would be struck down; however, when the courts found state laws to be based on the exercise of the state police power, the laws were upheld. Since the mid-1930s, whenever states have enacted legislation that affects interstate commerce, the courts have applied a two-pronged test. First, they ask: Is the regulation rationally related to a legitimate state end? If it is, then they ask: Is the regulatory burden imposed on interstate commerce outweighed by the state interest in enforcing the legislation? If it is, the state's regulation is upheld. Case 53 is an example of a state statute that has been upheld by considering this two-pronged test. ruled that the Violence Against Women Act, which Congress justified through its Commerce Clause power, was unconstitutional. Despite the rulings in Lopez and Morrison, however, the following case, Gonzales v. Raich, shows that the Court may not be categorically opposed to an expansion of congressional power through the Commerce Clause. CASE 5-2 The similarities between this case and Wickard are respondents do not sell marijuana; and (3) the Wickard striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are record made it clear that the aggregate production of cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible com- wheat for use on farms had a significant impact on modity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, market prices. Those differences, though factually acinterstate market. Just as the Agricultural Adjustment curate, do not diminish the precedential force of this CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT THE LAW Analogies are a standard method for creating a link between the case at hand and legal precedent. Wickard v. Filburn is a long-established precedent. The court's reasoning in Case 5-2 is that the use of medical marijuana by the plaintiffs is sufficiently similar to the facts in Wickard to rely on this precedent. 1. What are the similarities between the case at hand and Wickard? Clue: Try to make a large list of similarities. Later, after you have made a large list, think about the logic the analogy is trying to support. Eliminate those similarities that do not assist that logic because they are not relevant to an assessment of the quality of the analogy. 2. Are there significant differences that the Court ignores or downplays? Clue: First think about the purpose this analogy is serving. Then think about the differences in the facts for this case and the facts for Wickard. CH APT E R 5 * The Constitution for B Although the current Supreme Court seems to prefer greater regulatory power for states, Gonzales v. Raich and another recent case stand as examples in which the Supreme Court upheld congressional acts on the basis of the Commerce Clause. In Pierce County v. Guillen, 11 the Supreme Court held that the Hazard Elimination Program was a valid exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. This program provided funding to state and local governments to improve conditions of some of their most unsafe roads. To receive federal funding, however, state and local governments were required to regularly acquire information about potential road hazards. The state and local governments were reluctant to avail themselves of the program for fear that the information they acquired to receive funding would be used against them in lawsuits based on negligence. To alleviate these fears, Congress amended the program, allowing state and local governments to conduct engineering surveys without publicly disseminating the acquired information, even for discovery purposes in trials. Following his spouse's death in an automobile accident, Ignacio Guillen sued Pierce County and sought information related to previous accidents at the intersection where his wife died. The county argued that such information was protected under the provisions of the Hazard Elimination Program. Reversing the appellate court's holding that Congress exceeded its powers when amending the act, the Supreme Court concluded that the amended act was valid under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court reasoned that Congress had a significant interest in assisting local and state governments in improving safety in the channels of interstate commerce, the interstate highways. 'The Court validated Congress's belief that state and local governments would be more likely to collect relevant and accurate information about potential road hazards if those governments would not be required to provide such information in discovery. Hence, the Supreme Court held that the amended act of Congress was valid on the basis of the Commerce Clause. Despite the Court's ruling in Pierce County v. Guillen, many Supreme Court commentators had thought that the Court's turn toward a more restrictive interpretation of the Commerce Clause would lead the Court to rule that Congress cannot justify regulating states' decisions regarding medical marijuana through the Commerce Clause. Instead, Justice Stevens distinguished Gonzales v. Raich from United States v. Lopez and Brzonkala v. Morrison, explaining that the federal regulations at issue in Lopez and Morrison were not related to economic activity, even understood broadly, and thus in both cases Congress had overstepped its bounds. Raich's activities, however, did involve economic activity, even if it is the economic activity of an illegal, controlled substance. Exhibit 5-3 offers a summary of a number of Commerce Clause cases the Supreme Court has decided since Lopez. One inference a person could draw after examining the cases in Exhibit 53 is that the Court is willing to limit congressional power but not necessarily in every instance where such restriction is possible. THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS A RESTRICTION ON STATE AUTHORITY Because the Commerce Clause grants authority to regulate commerce to the federal government, a conflict arises over the extent to which granting such authority to the federal government restricts the states' authority to regulate commerce. 'The courts have attempted to resolve the conflict over the impact of the Commerce Clause on state regulation by distinguishing between regulations of commerce and regulations under the state police power. Police power means the residual powers retained by the state to enact legislation to safeguard the health and welfare of its citizenry. When the courts perceived state laws to be attempts to regulate interstate 11537U.S.129(2003) 144 P A R T O N E - What is the Legal Environment of Business? EXHIBIT 5-3 MODERN SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE commerce, these laws would be struck down; however, when the courts found state laws to be based on the exercise of the state police power, the laws were upheld. Since the mid-1930s, whenever states have enacted legislation that affects interstate commerce, the courts have applied a two-pronged test. First, they ask: Is the regulation rationally related to a legitimate state end? If it is, then they ask: Is the regulatory burden imposed on interstate commerce outweighed by the state interest in enforcing the legislation? If it is, the state's regulation is upheld. Case 53 is an example of a state statute that has been upheld by considering this two-pronged test