Simone Lawson
The US Constitution grants Congress broad powers over interstate relations, with Article IV imposing prohibitions on interstate discrimination. This article has been interpreted as a constitutional default rule, with its enforceability contingent on the absence of congressionally authorized discrimination. The Constitution contains sections pertaining to interstate compacts, disputes, full faith and credit, privileges and immunities, and the rendition of fugitives from justice. Despite seeking to establish an economic union, interstate trade barriers continue to be erected, with states using their police powers to regulate persons and property, impacting the free movement of trade. The Supreme Court has played a role in interpreting interstate compacts, with rulings impacting their status as federal or state law. The scope of Congress's power over interstate relations, referred to as horizontal federalism, has raised questions about the relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court in disputes.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Article | IV |
| Interstate discrimination prohibitions | Central to the US's status as a single nation |
| Interstate authority | Granted to Congress |
| Interstate compacts | Congress has granted consent to most compacts, but not all |
| State entrance into compacts | Permitted |
| Interstate disputes | Covered |
| Full faith and credit | Covered |
| Privileges and immunities | Covered |
| Rendition of fugitives from justice | Covered |
| Congressional power | Includes regulation of foreign, interstate, and Indian nation commerce |
| Congressional limitations | Fourteenth Amendment |
| Horizontal federalism | Term used to refer to provisions governing relations between sister states |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
Interstate compacts
The US Constitution permits states to change their relationships with one another through interstate compacts, which are agreements between two or more states that are approved by their respective legislatures. Compacts can also be consented to by Congress, in which case they become federal law. Interstate compacts are a mechanism for states to address issues more effectively, such as by creating interstate agencies or commissions to administer shared resources like seaports or public transportation infrastructure. They can also be used to resolve boundary disputes, improve infrastructure, and reduce administrative barriers and costs.
The Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) of the US Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power...". However, the Supreme Court has ruled that explicit congressional consent is not required for agreements that do not increase states' political power or encroach on federal power. The Court has allowed compacts to stand without congressional consent if they are non-political and do not fall under the scope of the Compact Clause. The timing for Congressional consent is not specified in the Constitution, and consent may be given before or after states have agreed to a compact.
Congress can impose conditions as part of its approval of a compact and must explicitly approve any compact that gives a state power designated to the federal government. Interstate compacts are distinct from model acts, which are proposed statutes produced by non-governmental legal experts for state legislatures to pass independently, rather than through multi-state agreements. Treaties between states ratified under the Articles of Confederation after American independence in 1776 are also considered interstate compacts, such as the Treaty of Beaufort, which set the boundary between Georgia and South Carolina in 1787.
Examples of interstate compacts include the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and Tunnel Compact, where Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia created an interstate agency to manage the bridge, and the Northeastern Interstate Forest Fire Compact, the first compact to include a Canadian province. The Interstate Oil Compact of 1935 and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact of 1942 were granted consent for a specific period, but these sunset provisions were later removed.
Understanding Carolina's Fundamental Constitutions: Purpose and Legacy
You may want to see also
Interstate disputes
The US Constitution contains sections pertaining to interstate disputes, among other matters such as state entrance into interstate compacts, full faith and credit, privileges and immunities, and rendition of fugitives from justice.
An example of an interstate dispute is the long-drawn-out litigation between Rhode Island and Massachusetts, which resulted in several significant rulings. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Constitution does not extend judicial power to all controversies between states, it also does not exclude them. It was also ruled that a boundary dispute is a justiciable matter, not a political question, and that a prescribed rule of decision is unnecessary in such cases.
Another example of an interstate dispute is McBurney v. Young, where the Court found that any incidental burden on a nonresident's ability to earn a living, own property, or exercise another "fundamental" activity could be mitigated through other available authorities. The Court emphasised that state freedom of information acts are intended to provide citizens with a means to hold public officials accountable.
Interstate trade barriers continue to be erected, despite the Constitution's aim of establishing an economic union. These barriers are often based on the police power of a state, allowing it to regulate persons and property for the promotion of public health, safety, welfare, morals, and convenience. State legislatures may hinder the free movement of interstate trade by using their licensing and taxing powers.
Understanding the Constitution: Supermajority Requirements
You may want to see also
Full faith and credit
The Full Faith and Credit Clause, or Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, outlines the duty of individual states to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". This clause ensures that federal courts accord the judgments of state courts the same faith and credit that the courts of one state give to another's judgments.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been interpreted and modified several times since its inception. In 1790, shortly after the Constitution's ratification, Congress acted under the clause, stating that "the records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every Court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the Courts of the state from whence the said records are or shall be taken." This was further interpreted in 1813 by the Supreme Court in Mills v. Duryee, where a New York court judgment was used in a local District of Columbia court.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been a topic of debate regarding state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted, allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The constitutionality of DOMA was debated, with some scholars arguing it violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause, while others disagreed. The Supreme Court ultimately struck down DOMA as a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause without addressing the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
The scope of Congress's powers under the Full Faith and Credit Clause remains unsettled, as Congress has rarely invoked its legislative authority under this clause. However, the clause has been interpreted to require states to open their courts to claims based on other states' laws under specific circumstances.
Qualifications for House Membership: Constitutional Requirements
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Privileges and immunities
The Privileges and Immunities Clause, found in Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution, prevents states from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. It establishes that citizens of each state are entitled to the same privileges and immunities as citizens of other states. This clause is also known as the Comity Clause and is derived from the Articles of Confederation, which guaranteed "the free inhabitants of each of these states [...] privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States."
The clause protects the fundamental rights of individual citizens by restraining states from discriminating against out-of-state citizens. These fundamental rights include the right to pursue a livelihood, the right to acquire and possess property, and the right to safety and happiness. The Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to include the right to own property, as seen in the case of Oyama v. California. Additionally, the clause has been associated with the right to interstate travel, though this was not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause also addresses the relationship between state and national citizenship. While it refers to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it does not expand the legislative authority of Congress beyond what is already enumerated in the Constitution. The clause does not grant Congress the power to legislate on property and contract rights, which are generally associated with state citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment, which also includes a Privileges or Immunities Clause, applies to a broad range of civil rights but not political rights such as voting, jury service, and office-holding.
In practice, the Privileges and Immunities Clause has been interpreted and applied in various court cases. For example, in McBurney v. Young, the Court found that any burden on a non-resident's ability to exercise fundamental rights could be addressed through other available authorities. In another case, Hicklin v. Orbeck, the Court recognized that the right to pursue an occupation has long been protected by the clause. The burden of justifying any discrimination based on state residency falls on the state, as seen in Mullaney v. Anderson.
Executive Power: Australia's Constitutional Leadership
You may want to see also
Extradition procedures
The Extradition Clause, also known as the Interstate Rendition Clause, is a part of the US Constitution that requires states, upon the demand of another state, to deliver a fugitive from justice who has committed a "treason, felony, or other crime" to the state from which they have fled. This clause is nearly unchanged from the analogous provision in the Articles of Confederation and was approved unanimously at the Constitutional Convention.
The Extradition Act, passed by the Second Congress and currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3182, sets out the process by which an executive of a state, district, or territory must arrest and turn over a fugitive from another state or territory. This involves an executive authority demand, a copy of an indictment or affidavit made before a magistrate, and certification of authenticity by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from which the fugitive has fled. The requesting state must send an agent to receive the prisoner within 30 days of arrest, or the prisoner may be released.
While the Extradition Clause does not provide Congress with an express grant of power to implement it, the Supreme Court has held that the legislative extension of the clause to territories is permissible and constitutionally valid. This was established in the 1909 case of New York ex rel Kopel v. Bingham and reaffirmed in the 1987 case of Puerto Rico v. Branstad, which overruled the earlier Kentucky v. Dennison decision. In the latter case, the Supreme Court held that the governor of a state has no discretion in performing the duty to extradite, regardless of whether that duty arises under the Extradition Clause or state law.
In extradition cases, petitioners may contest the legality of their detention through a habeas proceeding by arguing that the extradition treaty is not in force, that the alleged crime is subject to exception, that the determination of extraditability was not made according to the requirements of applicable statutes and treaties, that the extradition procedure does not comply with the Constitution, or that the relator has not been formally charged. While the decision of the extradition magistrate cannot be appealed, the habeas corpus determination by a district court can be appealed to the corresponding circuit court, and review may be sought through certiorari to the Supreme Court.
The Right to Education: Is It in the US Constitution?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The legal basis for interstate relationships in the US Constitution is Article IV, which outlines the relationship between the states and grants Congress broad power over interstate relations.
Article IV imposes prohibitions on interstate discrimination, ensuring that citizens of one state are permitted to participate in the same rights as citizens of another state.
The US Constitution seeks to establish an economic union, but interstate trade barriers still exist. These barriers are often based on the police power of a state to regulate persons and property within its borders.
Congress has expansive authority to structure interstate relationships and can authorize discrimination, although this power is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress can also consent to interstate compacts, which are agreements between states.
