Case Study

1088 WordsAug 9, 20125 Pages
Case Study 1. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) [Questioned in three (3) cases] a. In re Pan American Paper Mills, Inc., 618 F.2d 159 (Not Pertinent) b. South Dakota v. Adams, 506 F. Supp. 50 (Not Pertinent) c. Kansas v. United States, 214 F.3d 1196 (Possibly Helpful) i. The Court did strike down a funding condition in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, but that case relied on an overly narrow view of Congress' enumerated powers to determine that Congress had overstepped its authority. The analysis in Butler has been discredited as flawed and unworkable, and has not been followed. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 5-b, at 836 (3d ed. 2000) ("The Supreme Court has effectively ignored Butler in judging the limits of congressional spending power."). 2. Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937) [Distinguished in two (2) cases] d. Escofil v. Commissioner, 376 F. Supp. 521 (Not Pertinent) e. Cain v. United States, 211 F.2d 375 (Not Pertinent) 3. Steward Machine v. Davis, 301 US 548 (1937) [Distinguished in seven (7) cases] f. Escofil v. Commissioner, 376 F. Supp. 521 (Not Pertinent) g. Maryland v. EPA, 530 F.2d 215 (Possibly Helpful) ii. It should be noted that many forms of pressure on the states have been held not to violate those rights reserved by the Tenth Amendment, and none of them have been included in this statute. The alternative whip of economic pressure and seductive favor was approved in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 US 548, 81 L. Ed. 1279, 57 S. Ct. 883 (1937) (unemployment tax); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 US 127, 91 L. Ed. 794, 67 S. Ct. 544 (1937) (withholding of highway funds conditioned on removal of a member of the highway commission of state); Vermont v. Brinegar, 379 F. Supp. 606 (D. Vt. 1974) (highway funds withholding

More about Case Study

Open Document