Topic: The Spending Clause
Senator: Feinstein
Date: SEPTEMBER 15, 2005
Contents
FEINSTEIN: Senator Kennedy engaged you in, I think, a substantive discussion on the civil rights issue. And you did let a little bit of the man come through. And I commend you for that. Thank you very much.
Let me talk about Gonzaga for a minute. Because if I understand it, you argued that the spending clauses are not the supreme law of the land but should be viewed as contracts between the federal government and the states, right?
ROBERTS: No. It was not a dispute about it being the supreme law of the land. There's no dispute about that, that when Congress passes legislation under the supremacy clause, it's the supreme law of the land.
The question is what remedies are available.
It's a very simple problem. You folks give money to the states and you say, "You can spend this money on educational programs. But if you accept our money, you have to do this, this and this."
FEINSTEIN: Right.
ROBERTS: And the question is: Well, what happens if somebody comes into court and says, "They accepted the money; Congress said, 'If you take our money, you have to do this'; They didn't do it, they violated my rights under this provision," what happens then?
Now, in many cases, Congress will say, "f these rights are violated, you can sue in court. And you can make that state institution" -- in this case not a state institution, but a private university; that same thing; they've accepted the funds -- "you can make them pay damages."
But in other cases the argument is, "Well, the condition was imposed by the federal government and the federal government should enforce any violations. And you don't necessarily have the right to sue for damages."
ROBERTS: That's the question. It's an issue that would never come up if Congress would say in its law, "If you violate this provision, you can sue in federal court," or, "you can't sue in federal court," or, as in this case, "We're going to set up an office in the Department of Education that is going to police compliance. And if you violate this provision, that office is going to come down on the university and make them comply, make them do whatever they need to do to get back into compliance."
There's no dispute that the university in this case is bound by the condition. The question is does an individual who's harmed by their violation get to sue about it?
And that sometimes it comes out that they can, as in the Wilder case. Sometimes it comes out that they can't; the determination is that Congress did not intend there to be a private lawsuit to enforce that. And that was the conclusion in the Gonzaga case.
FEINSTEIN: Well, let me ask you: Do you believe that state obligations created by Congress through the spending clause are enforceable by citizens in the courts?
ROBERTS: Well, the answer there is it depends on that law.
In Gonzaga, what the court determined was that provision at issue there was not enforceable by private citizens in the courts. It was enforceable by the federal government. The federal government can cut off the funds. More likely the federal government can enforce the division through proceedings against the university.
In the Wilder case, a different statute, the court determined the condition in that case, the Medicaid funding case, was enforceable; a private citizen could go into court. Because the view of Congress' intent in that case came out differently than it did in the Gonzaga case.
FEINSTEIN: Thank you.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
