About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

4 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 460 (1994-1995)
Supreme Court and Unconstitutional Conditions: Federalism and Individual Rights

handle is hein.journals/cjlpp4 and id is 464 raw text is: THE SUPREME COURT AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS: FEDERALISM AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS Jesse H. Chopert The Supreme Court's record when enforcing the general prohibition against unconstitutional conditions has been quite mixed. Though the Court's efforts have been fairly vigorous in regard to individual rights, its efforts in regard to national power's constitutional limits vis-a-vis the states have been mini- mal. I agree with these choices. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's rationale for the distinction between individual rights and states' rights is seriously flawed. Here is a brief review of the Court's position. For nearly four decades the Supreme Court, in regard to individual rights, has quite forcefully held that the Government cannot accom- plish indirectly - through conditioning the allocation of benefits such as employment or tax subsidies - that which it is barred from doing directly. The 1958 case of Speiser v. Randall' held that the state could not deny a property tax exemption to members of the Communist Party. In 1963, Sherbert v. Verner2 held that the state could not deny unemployment compensation benefits to a Sabbatarian who left her job because of her religion. In 1984, Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters' held that Congress could not award subsidies to public broadcasting stations on the condition that they not engage in any editorializing. On the other hand, the Court's record on unconstitutional conditions for the exercise of individual rights has not been unexceptionably protective. Its most egregious failure has been in regard to abortion. The important cases are Maher v. Roe4 in 1977, and Harris v. McRae5 in 1980, in which the Court reviewed state and federal limitations on the use of medical t Earl Warren Professor of Public Law, University of California at Berke- ley (Boalt Hall). 1 357 U.S. 513 (1958). 2 374 U.S. 398 (1963). 3 468 U.S. 364 (1984). 4 432 U.S. 464 (1977). 1448 U.S. 297 (1980). 460

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most