You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 44.201.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪ST47‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a web host's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and they should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 23:54, 31 July 2024.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪AntiCompositeNumber‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: Visit the FAQ if you are affected .
- Start of block: 13:55, 18 August 2022
- Expiry of block: 13:55, 18 April 2025
Your current IP address is 44.201.28.123. The blocked range is 44.201.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((short description|1985 U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the Fair Labor Standards Act))
((more citations needed|date=January 2017))
((Use American English|date=June 2023))
((Use mdy dates|date=June 2023))
((Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants=Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
| ArgueDate=March 19
| ArgueYear=1984
| ReargueYear=1984
| ReargueDate=October 1
| DecideDate=February 19
| DecideYear=1985
| FullName=Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al.
| USVol=469
| USPage=528
| ParallelCitations=105 S. Ct. 1005; 83 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 1016; 85 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 48; 53 U.S.L.W. 4135; 102 Lab. Cas. ([[CCH (company)|CCH]]) ¶ 34,633; 36 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 34,995; 27 Wage & Hour Cas. ([[Bloomberg BNA|BNA]]) 65
| Prior=Summary judgment granted to plaintiff San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,  557 [[F. Supp.]] 445 ([[W.D. Tex.]] 1982); probable jurisdiction noted, ((ussc|464|812|1983|el=no)).
| Subsequent=Petition for rehearing denied April 15, 1985
| Holding=Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution to apply the Fair Labor Standards Act to a municipal mass transit system operated by a governmental entity. District Court for the Western District of Texas reversed.
| Majority=Blackmun
| JoinMajority=Brennan, White, Marshall, Stevens
| Dissent=Powell
| JoinDissent=Burger, Rehnquist, O'Connor
| Dissent2=Rehnquist
| Dissent3=O'Connor
| JoinDissent3=Rehnquist, Powell
| LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]], [[Commerce Clause]], [[Necessary and Proper Clause]]; [[Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938]]
| Overturned previous case=''[[National League of Cities v. Usery]]'', ((ussc|426|833|1976))
))
'''''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority''''', 469 U.S. 528 (1985), is a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark]] [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]<ref>((cite web |author1=Noel P. Tripp from Jackson Lewis P.C. |title=LI Village Treasurer Is Exempt Administrative Employee Based on Purchasing Duties |url=https://casetext.com/analysis/li-village-treasurer-is-exempt-administrative-employee-based-on-purchasing-duties?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q= |publisher=casetext.com |access-date=March 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20220321084016/https://casetext.com/analysis/li-village-treasurer-is-exempt-administrative-employee-based-on-purchasing-duties?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q= |archive-date=March 21, 2022 |quote=Municipal workers have been protected by the FLSA since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1985 decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1985) (though public sector employers are permitted to pay premium overtime via compensatory time rather than cash wages under 29 U.S.C. § 207(o)).))</ref> decision in which the Court held that the [[United States Congress|Congress]] has the power under the [[Commerce Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] to extend the [[Fair Labor Standards Act]], which requires that employers provide [[minimum wage]] and overtime pay to their employees, to state and local governments.<ref>((ussc|name=Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority|link=|volume=469|page=528|pin=|year=1985)). ((usgovpd))</ref> In this case, the Court overruled its previous decision in ''[[National League of Cities v. Usery]]'',<ref name=Usery>((ussc|name=National League of Cities v. Usery|426|833|1976)).</ref> in which the Court had held that regulation of the activities of state and local governments "in areas of traditional governmental functions" would violate the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]].

==History==
When Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, it did not apply either to employees of private transit companies or to employees of state and local governments. Congress extended coverage of the FLSA's minimum wage provisions to employees of private transit companies of a certain size in 1961, then amended the Act to cover some employees of state and local governments in 1966 by withdrawing the minimum wage and overtime exemptions for public hospitals, schools, and mass transit carriers whose rates and services were subject to state regulation. At the same time, Congress eliminated the overtime exemption for all mass transit employees other than drivers, operators, and conductors. Congress later phased out these overtime exemptions when amending the Act in 1974.

The Supreme Court held in ''[[Maryland v. Wirtz]]''<ref>((ussc|name=Maryland v. Wirtz|volume=392|page=183|pin=|year=1968)).</ref> that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to extend the FLSA to cover employees of public schools and hospitals. In 1976, however, the Court held in ''National League of Cities'' that Congress lacked authority to regulate the wages and hours of governmental employees performing "traditional governmental functions." The [[San Antonio]] Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA, now known as [[VIA Metropolitan Transit]]), which had been observing the overtime requirements of federal law up to that point, responded by informing employees that it was no longer obliged to provide them with overtime pay.

In 1979, the Wage and Hour Division of the [[United States Department of Labor]] took the position that SAMTA's operations were covered by the FLSA because they were not a traditional governmental function. SAMTA then filed suit in the [[United States District Court for the Western District of Texas]] seeking a [[declaratory judgment]] that its transit operations were beyond Congress' power to regulate. The Department of Labor filed a counterclaim seeking enforcement of the Act.

Joe G. Garcia and other employees of SAMTA brought their own suit in the same court seeking to recover the overtime pay they claimed they were owed. The court stayed that action but allowed Garcia to intervene as a defendant in the SAMTA declaratory judgment action against the Department of Labor.

==Prior rulings==
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted SAMTA the declaratory judgment it sought, ruling that its transit operations were a traditional governmental function and therefore exempt from regulation under ''[[National League of Cities v. Usery]]''.<ref name=Usery/> Both Garcia and the department appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which vacated and remanded the decision for reconsideration in light of its intervening decision in ''Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co.'',<ref>((ussc|name=Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co.|link=|volume=455|page=678|pin=|year=1982)).</ref> that some transit operations were not a traditional function of government.

On remand, the [[United States district court|district court]] again held for SAMTA, ruling that the historical record showed that, even though local mass transit operations had been largely privately owned in the past, they had also been heavily regulated by state and local governments, creating at least an "inference of sovereignty". Noting that the federal government had historically exempted the operations of state and local governments from federal regulation in many instances, it ruled that refusing to apply the FLSA would not run counter to a century of regulation, as was the case in the railroad industry, and that exemption of state and local governments' operations was, in fact, a supervening federal policy. Called on to draw a distinction between those governmental functions that were traditional and those that were not, the Court analogized the task to Justice [[Potter Stewart]]'s famous definition of [[pornography]] in ''[[Jacobellis v. Ohio]]'',<ref>((ussc|name=Jacobellis v. Ohio|link=|volume=378|page=184|pin=|year=1964)).</ref> holding that it was impossible to articulate the distinction but "someone knows it when they see it". Both Garcia and the Department of Labor appealed again.

==Supreme Court==
===Argument and reargument===
The case was [[Oral argument|argued]] on March 19, 1984, with [[William Thaddeus Coleman Jr.]] appearing to argue for the Transit Authority and Assistant Attorney General [[Theodore Olson]] arguing for the workers.<ref name=oyez>[https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1913 Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. "Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority."] Oyez.</ref>  At the March 21 conference five Justices, including Justice [[Harry Blackmun]], voted to affirm, upholding ''National League of Cities''.<ref name=yale>((Bluebook journal | first=David Scott | last=Louk | title=Repairing the Irreparable: Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court | volume=125 | journal=Yale L.J. | page=682 | pin= | url=https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/d.682.Louk.728_eepwsbxc.pdf | year=2016))</ref>

Justice Blackmun had joined the Court in ''National League of Cities'' but wrote in concurrence that he was “not untroubled” by Justice [[William Rehnquist]]'s majority opinion.<ref>''Nat’l League of Cities'', 426 U.S. at 856 (Blackmun, J., concurring).</ref>  Chief Justice [[Warren E. Burger]] preferred to assign opinions to the "least persuaded" justice, so now he asked Blackmun to write for the Court.<ref name=yale/>  Justice Blackmun's [[law clerk]], however, convinced Blackmun that he could not write a workable opinion upholding ''National League of Cities''.<ref name=yale/>  On June 11 Justice Blackmun circulated a memo announcing that he was switching his vote.<ref name=yale/>

The case was scheduled for reargument and the Court asked for briefs on the additional question as to if ''National League of Cities'' “should be reconsidered”.<ref>((ussc|name=Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority|link=|volume=468|page=1213|pin=|year=1984|el=no)).</ref> At reargument on October 1 former Secretary Coleman reappeared for the Transit Authority but this time the Solicitor General of the United States [[Rex E. Lee]] appeared, arguing to reverse.<ref name=oyez/>  Half of the States filed amici briefs urging affirmance, including then-Attorneys General [[Joe Lieberman]] and [[John Ashcroft]].

In its decision, issued February 19, 1985, the Court ruled by a vote of five to four that the concept of "traditional governmental functions" was analytically unsound and that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to apply the FLSA to employees of state and local governments.

===Opinion of the Court===
Writing for the majority, [[Harry Blackmun|Justice Blackmun]] noted that the courts had not come up with an analytically sound distinction between traditional and non-traditional governmental operations. He noted that the Court had adopted a similar distinction decades earlier in challenges to the federal government's taxation of the operations of state governments, only to reject it as well. The Court denounced any efforts to draw this distinction, whether based on the historical record or on historical grounds, as arbitrary and likely to be suffused with the prejudices of an unelected branch of government as to which governmental functions are proper and traditional and which ones are not.

The Court also rejected the theoretical underpinnings of the ''[[National League of Cities v. Usery]]'' decision&mdash;that the Constitution's recognition of the sovereignty of the states necessarily implies limits on the power of the federal government to regulate their [[employment relations]]. In the majority's view, the constitutional grant of authority to Congress to regulate interstate commerce was not qualified by any implied limitation on the right to regulate the activities of the states when they engaged in interstate commerce; on the contrary, the Commerce Clause invalidates state regulations that interfere with commerce, while the [[Supremacy Clause]] allows Congress to preempt state laws that conflict with federal law in this area. According to the majority, the framers believed that state sovereignty could be maintained by the peculiar structure they adopted: a Senate in which each state was given equal representation, regardless of its population, an electoral college that gave the states the power to choose electors, and the indirect election of Senators by the legislature of each state prior to the adoption of the [[Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. Noting that the same Congress that extended the FLSA to cover government-run mass transit systems also provided substantial funding for those systems, the Court concluded that the structure created by the framers had indeed protected the states from overreaching by the federal government.

===Powell's dissent===
[[Lewis Franklin Powell Jr.|Justice Powell]], joined by [[Warren Burger|Chief Justice Burger]], [[William Rehnquist|Justice Rehnquist]] and [[Sandra Day O'Connor|Justice O'Connor]] objected to both the Court's failure to grant ''[[stare decisis]]'' effect to its earlier decision in ''National League of Cities'' and for reducing the balancing test that the Court adopted in ''National League of Cities'' into a cruder categorical distinction between traditional and non-traditional governmental functions. Powell's opinion was even more critical of the majority's failure to recognize any limiting role of the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]], accusing it of negating the Court's role in mediating between the two through judicial review of the constitutionality of Congress' intrusions into areas previously left to the states.  Powell wrote "The State's role in our system of government is a matter of Constitutional law, not legislative grace."

===Rehnquist's dissent===
Justice Rehnquist expressed reservations as to Justice Powell's description of the standard actually adopted by the Court in ''National League of Cities'' and of the alternative standard proposed by Justice O'Connor, but reiterated his support of both dissenting opinions based on their opposition to the Court's resolution of those constitutional issues in this case.

===O'Connor's dissent===
Acknowledging that the changes in the national economy in the past two hundred years had transformed Congress' Commerce Clause power from being a marginal power that served mostly to mediate between the states by eliminating interstate tariffs and other burdens on interstate commerce into a general power that gave Congress essentially unlimited power to regulate in every area of economic life, O'Connor argued for special limitations on this power to protect the states' authority over their own employment relations. She invoked the limiting language of the most expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause in the Court's decisions of the 1930s and 1940s to argue that the Court retained the power to decide whether a particular exercise of the Commerce Clause authority was necessary and proper to the federal purposes to be achieved. Applying that standard, she, joined by Justices Powell and Rehnquist, would find the FLSA unconstitutional as applied to employees of state and local governments.

==The impact of the case==
When the Court confirmed Congress' power to regulate the wage and hour standards applicable to employees of state and local governments, a different, more conservative Congress than the ones that had extended the FLSA to governmental employees in the first place now confronted the complaints from local governments that the Act was too inflexible and expensive to comply with. Congress responded by amending the Act in 1985, allowing governments to offer compensatory time off rather than overtime in some circumstances, creating an exemption for volunteers and excluding certain legislative employees from coverage under the Act. The Act also erased liabilities owed to employees who would not have been covered by the Act as interpreted by the Department of Labor's regulations prior to the Court's decision.((Citation needed|date=February 2016))

''Garcia'' represents in many ways the high-water mark((Citation needed|date=February 2016)) for the Court's expansive reading of the Commerce Clause to favor centralized national government as opposed to the more decentralized version of federalism, in which the Tenth Amendment limits the authority of the federal government vis à vis the states, as envisioned by Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor. While Chief Justice Rehnquist's later opinion in ''[[United States v. Lopez]]''<ref>((ussc|name=United States v. Lopez|514|549|1995)).</ref> did not purport to overturn ''Garcia'', it reasserted the Court's power to set limits on Congress' authority to invoke the Commerce Clause to regulate in areas that have only an insignificant connection with interstate commerce.

==See also==
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 469]]

==References==
((reflist))

==External links==
*((caselaw source
 | case=''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority'', ((ussc|469|528|1985|el=no))
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/111308/garcia-v-san-antonio-metropolitan-transit-authority/
 | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/469/528.html
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14324093602590092926
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/528/case.html
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep469/usrep469528/usrep469528.pdf
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1913
 ))

((USArticleI))

[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision]]
[[Category:United States Commerce Clause case law]]
[[Category:United States public employment case law]]
[[Category:United States Tenth Amendment case law]]
[[Category:Minimum wage law]]
[[Category:1985 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Transportation in San Antonio]]
[[Category:1985 in case law]]
[[Category:1985 in rail transport]]
[[Category:Railway case law]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Bluebook journal (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Bluebook meta/styles.css (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Caselaw source (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation needed (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:If between (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox SCOTUS case (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case/courts (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Spaces (view source) (protected)
Template:Template other (view source) (protected)
Template:Tomorrow (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:USArticleI (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Use American English (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Use mdy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Usgovpd (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Ussc (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:· (view source) (protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Italic title (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcia_v._San_Antonio_Metropolitan_Transit_Authority"