Chapter 4Constitutional Authority

to Regulate Business

Chapter 4Constitutional Authority

to Regulate Business

22

HistoryHistory

Before Revolutionary War, States wanted a confederation with weak national government and very limited powers. After the war, in 1787, States voted to amend Articles of Confederation and create a new, federal government that shared power with States.

Before Revolutionary War, States wanted a confederation with weak national government and very limited powers. After the war, in 1787, States voted to amend Articles of Confederation and create a new, federal government that shared power with States.

33

§1: Constitutional Powers of Government

§1: Constitutional Powers of Government

Constitution established a federal form of government with checks and balances among three branches: executive, legislative and judicial.

National government has limited, enumerated powers delegated from States.

44

U.S. Commerce ClauseU.S. Commerce Clause

Power to regulate interstate commerce defined in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).Expansion to private businesses began with Wickard v. Fillburn (1942).Today, Commerce Clause authorizes the national government to regulate virtually any business enterprise, including internet. Limits: U.S. v. Lopez (1995), Alden v. Maine (1999).

55

State CommerceState Commerce

States possess inherent police powers to regulate health, safety, public order, morals and general welfare.

State laws that substantially interfere with interstate commerce will be struck down.

66

U.S. Supremacy ClauseU.S. Supremacy Clause

Article VI of the Constitution “Supreme Law of the Land.”

In case of direct conflict between state and federal law, state law is invalid.

Congress can preempt states.

Taxing Powers.

77

§2: Business and the Bill of Rights§2: Business and the Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights are not absolute.

Originally the Bill of Rights was a limit on the national government’s powers.

During the early 1900’s, the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to the States via the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment.

88

Free Speech Free Speech

Afforded highest protection by courts.Symbolic Speech.Gestures, movements articles of clothing.Texas v. Johnson (1989).

Commercial Speech: Advertising is protected speech. Any restriction must:Implement substantial government interest;Directly advance that interest; andGo no further than necessary.

99

Corporate Political SpeechCorporate Political Speech

Afforded significant protection by the first amendment but not to the degree of speech of natural persons.First National v. Bellotti (1978).Consolidated Edison v. Public Service

Commission (1980).

1010

Unprotected SpeechUnprotected Speech

Certain types of speech are not protected by the first amendment:Slander.Pornography, Obscenity.Fighting Words.

What about “Hate Speech”?Doe v. University of Michigan (1989).

What about cyber obscenity and hate speech?

1111

Freedom of ReligionFreedom of Religion

First amendment many neither prohibit the “establishment” nor prohibit the “free exercise” of religion.The first amendment does not require complete “separation of church and state.”First amendment mandates accommodation of all religions and forbids hostility toward any. Zorach v. Clauson (1952).Lynch v. Donnelly (1984).

1212

Freedom of ReligionFreedom of Religion

First amendment guarantees the “free exercise” of religion.

Employers must reasonably accommodate beliefs as long as employee has sincerely held beliefs. Frazee v. Illinois (1989).

1313

Self-IncriminationSelf-Incrimination

Fifth amendment guarantees no person can be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal proceeding.

Does not apply to corporations or partnerships.Verniero v. Beverly Hills Ltd (1998).

1414

Searches and SeizuresSearches and Seizures

Fourth amendment requires warrant with “probable cause.” Warrantless exceptions exist for “evanescent” evidence.Searches of Business: generally business inspectors must have a warrant. Marshall v. Barlow’s (1978).

1515

§ 3: Other Constitutional Protections

§ 3: Other Constitutional Protections

Privileges and Immunities clauseArticle IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.Citizens can engage in basic activities (work,

marriage, property) in any state.

Full Faith and Credit clauseArticle IV, Section 1.The Public Act or Record of another state shall

be given equal weight in a sister state.

1616

Due ProcessDue Process

5th and 14th amendments provide “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”Procedural and Substantive issues.

1717

Procedural Due ProcessProcedural Due Process

Procedures depriving an individual of her rights must be fair and equitable.Constitution requires adequate notice and a fair and impartial hearing before a disinterested magistrate.

1818

Substantive Due ProcessSubstantive Due Process

Focuses on the content or substance of legislation.Laws limiting fundamental rights (speech, privacy, religion) must have a “compelling state interest.”Laws limiting non-fundamental rights require only a “rational basis.”

1919

Equal ProtectionEqual Protection

Strict Scrutiny.Laws that affect the fundamental rights of similarly situated individuals in a different manner are subject to the “strict scrutiny” test. Any “suspect class” (race, national origin) must serve a “compelling state interest” which includes remedying past discrimination.

2020

Equal ProtectionEqual Protection

Intermediate Scrutiny.Applied to laws involving gender or

legitimacy.To be constitutional laws must be substantially

related to important government objectives.• (EXAMPLE: Illegitimate teenage pregnancy).

2121

Equal ProtectionEqual Protection

Rational Basis Test.Applied to matters of economic or social

welfare.Laws will be constitutional if there is a rational

basis relating to legitimate government interest.

2222

PrivacyPrivacy

Fundamental right not expressly found in the constitution, but derived from 1st, 5th and 14th amendments.Laws and policies affecting privacy are subject to the compelling state interest test.Online privacy.

2323

Case 4.1: Bad Frog v. NY State Liquor Authority

Case 4.1: Bad Frog v. NY State Liquor Authority

FACTS:Bad Frog sells alcoholic beverages with

labels that display a frog “giving the finger.”

NYSLA denied approval of the label because children might see the labels in grocery and convenience stores.

Bad Frog sued NYSLA in federal court asking for an injunction against this denial.

The court granted a summary judgment in favor of the NYSLA. Bad Frog appealed.

2424

HELD: FOR BAD FROG. REVERSED.The Second Circuit ruled that NYLSA’s ban on the use

of the labels lacked a “reasonable fit” with the state’s interest in shielding minors from vulgarity, and the NYSLA did not adequately consider alternatives to the ban.

“In view of the wide currency of vulgar displays throughout contemporary society * * * barring such displays * * * cannot realistically be expected to reduce children’s exposure to such displays to any significant degree.”  

Case 4.1: Bad Frog v. NY State Liquor Authority

Case 4.1: Bad Frog v. NY State Liquor Authority

2525

Case 4.2: Verniero v. Beverly Hills, Ltd.

Case 4.2: Verniero v. Beverly Hills, Ltd.

FACTS:New Jersey investigated the marketing

practices of Beverly Hills Limited, Inc. Verniero, NJ’s Attorney General, served a

subpoena on Beverly Hills which ordered the production of business records.

Beverly Hills demanded guarantee of immunity before turning over the records.

Verniero sued to enforce the subpoena but the Court ruled in favor of Beverly Hills.

Verniero appealed.

2626

HELD: FOR VERNIERO. REVERSED.A corporation could not invoke a privilege

against self-incrimination and ordered Defendant to produce the records.

“[A] corporation may not invoke either the Fifth Amendment or the New Jersey privilege against self‑incrimination. Moreover, a custodian of corporate records may not rely upon his or her personal privilege against self‑incrimination as a basis for refusing to produce corporate records.”

Case 4.2: Verniero v. Beverly Hills, Ltd.

Case 4.2: Verniero v. Beverly Hills, Ltd.

2727

Case 4.3: WHS Realty v. Town of Morristown

Case 4.3: WHS Realty v. Town of Morristown

FACTS:Morristown ordinance provided free garbage

collection service for certain residences but excluded all multifamily dwellings with four or more units.

WHS owned an apartment complex that consisted of 140 units and thus did not receive the free service.

WHS sued Morristown claiming ordinance violated the equal protection clause.

The court held the ordinance was unconstitutional, finding it was not rationally related to any legitimate state interest.

2828

HELD: AFFIRMED. FOR WHS.The Superior Court remanded for determination

of damages. “[T]here is nothing about the mechanics or

costs of solid waste collection that justifies differentiating between apartment complexes and other residents.”

Morristown argued that “apartment units have a lesser value for tax assess ment purposes,” justifying different service. The court responded that this was not a serious argument.

Case 4.3: WHS Realty v. Town of Morristown

Case 4.3: WHS Realty v. Town of Morristown

2929

Case 4.4: Reno v. Condon (Privacy Rights)

Case 4.4: Reno v. Condon (Privacy Rights)

FACTS:Federal government passed Driver’s Privacy

Protection Act 1994 (DPPA) that required a driver to “opt in” before a state could sell a driver’s personal data.

Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, sued Reno in federal court alleging DPPA violated the Constitution. Under South Carolina state law, the information may be released unless a driver “opts out.”

The Court granted an injunction to prevent the DPPA’s enforcement, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld. Reno appealed.

3030

HELD: REVERSED. FOR RENO/DPPA.US Supreme Court held DPPA was a proper exercise of

Congress’s power under the commerce clause.“The motor vehicle information which the States have

historically sold is used by insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and others engaged in interstate commerce to contact drivers with customized solicitations.

The information is also used in the stream of interstate commerce by various public and private entities for matters related to interstate motoring.”

The DPPA did not require South Carolina to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals.”

Case 4.4: Reno v. Condon (Privacy Rights)

Case 4.4: Reno v. Condon (Privacy Rights)