United States Law Assignment Help

There are two constitutional principles under the United States law which is as under:

Principle 1: The Congress is generally required to act in bicameral manner which means that the law needs to be passed by the house as well as the senate.
Principle 2: If there is delegation of authority to executive branch from Congress, and then it must be ministerial or non-legislative in order to be constitutional.

Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 1952, the congress gave the power to allow the stoppage of deportation of good character people from the country. This was done with the view to avoid any undue hardship to the people of such good moral character. Under this delegation, the either of house or the senate individually could separately overturn the decision of the INS/ the attorney general.

Now, as the United States Supreme Court, the particular piece of law enabling the Act or the Statute to give such powers was unconstitutional in two ways:

The court argued that if overturning the decision was legislative in nature, then such enablement allowed either of the houses to overturn the decision. Such enablement breached the doctrine of bicameralism which was in it unconstitutional in nature.
However, if it was legislative in nature, then the enablement was unconstitutional in nature as it violated the separation of powers. This is because the executive is the in charge of administrative laws and not the Congress.

Consequently, after the Chaddha case in the year 1986, the court decided that the enabling of the statute section 244(c)(2) was unconstitutional.

The events unfolded at the different levels of court is presented below (Cornell University Law School, (n.d.) –

Texas trial court: As the arguments were being heard at the Texas Trial Court, Texaco Learning that the outcome of the case could not be favorable, entered into an appeal in the U.S. district court.
Court of Appeals: The court of appeals affirmed and concluded that the younger abstention was quite unnecessary. The honorable court affirmed this decision by saying that
- The interests of the court at stake were different from that were presented at dual level of
  - Kind
  - Degree
- That the Texas has failed to establish as well as provide adequate procedures concluding the appellant’s federal claims.
Texas Supreme Court: During the hearing of admitting the appeal at Texas Supreme Court, the court concluded that sub provision to Article I of the constitution states that every litigant must have to right to their day in the court. It stated that the legislature has no power to make remedy which is too contingent on the condition that is impossible to occur. Based on the above argument, the court even denied the appellant to admit the appeal and dismissed the court.
Federal Lower Court: The court granted injunction to Texaco. It evaluated the prospects of Texaco Appeal. The court believed that the Texaco appeal had fair chance of winning on the basis of merits of the arguments and declared that risk of erroneous deprivation was quite severe.
Circuit court of appeals: Circuit court of appeals also agreed with the district court and concluded that the
- Texaco had successfully established the likelihood of success on its constitutional claims.
- The hardship balance also shifted to Texaco side and the court finally granted the injunctive to Texaco.
Supreme Court – The U.S. Supreme Court nullified the order of the lower court and in fact reversed the decision of the lower court. It stated that the lower court must not have interfered with the decision of the state court and thus reversed the order passed by the New York Court.

Final Outcome of the Case

The Texaco Company filed for bankruptcy after the decision of the Supreme Court on 6^th April, 1987. The company Pennzoil then accepted to settle the matter for the amount of $ 3 Billion.

The court on finding the federal per-emption issued a preliminary injunction stopping the said four of its provisions from taking effect. It was held by the court that –

Federal government is extensive and complex. The court argued that the structure of the government is such that it has constitutional powers to apply the uniform code of naturalization.
Even though the government has the right to reject the admission of the alien from entering the united Stated, the removal is altogether a different thing. The Immigration officials have the power to conduct inquiry on the person they sought to remove. ICE is under the powers of homeland security.

However, the court finally reasoned that the congress has the powers to per-empt the state laws and the state shall have no powers to overrule in the areas where the congress has exercised its powers under the federal law. An example where the federal court and state courts have common jurisdiction is:

Under the diverse citizenship, the state courts are also allowed to hear the appeals. However, the appellant also has the right and the federal courts also have the power to hear the case where the individual is not the resident of a particular state and has different domestic or international citizenship (litigation.findlaw.com, (n.d.)).

The main argument under the Heart of Atlanta case presented before the court was against the Title II to the Civil Rights Act which gave the powers to the congress to act in certain conditions. The appellant argued before the court that the Title II to the act of civil right is unconstitutional and the Congress has no powers to either make such a section or then follow it by implementing it.

The 10^th amendment clearly supported the arguments made by the appellant in this case. The 10^th amendment gave powers to the state that the each state has equal rights and that no shall be imposed on the state unless it is passed by the state’s senate. This gave the powers to the state that chose not to implement the civil rights act to still keep on denying the basic rights to the people of other race specially the Negroes.

The primary argument under the given case can be studied mainly under the light of commerce clause. The following arguments were presented:

It was established as the fact that the people with the onslaught of growing economy have become more and more mobile and it has become impossible for them to move if they are not provided with proper accommodations. The black people specially have to call their friends for stay as the local hotels do not allow them to stay in their rooms.
These problems especially with the black people have become so acute that they can’t travel to a city where they do not have friends.
These practices of discrimination were found nationwide.
Even the secretary of commerce testified that the practice of discrimination is widespread in the entire country.

The main logic given in the case was that even though motel case was the case of the single state and that the congress should not involve itself in the same, but since the main pinch of the problem was being felt by the interstate commerce, so the commerce interfered in the ensuing matter.

The heart of Atlanta case was very important for the nation as it affirmed the congress for the use of commerce clause which ultimately enabled the Congress to bring about social changes in the country which have been long over-due. It is titled as one of the biggest victories of the civil rights Act. Had the Congress lost the case, it would have been catastrophic for the nation as a whole. Only after the country was able to give equal rights to all its citizens, the nation could gather its soul and progress ahead. The victory of the Congress also brought about a slew of changes in the country in the field of social welfare. The congress using the commerce clause was able to bring about a lot of changes into the social fabric of the country and the victory in the Heart of Atlanta case was landmark in the social changes that followed.

The case may or may not have ended differently has the minimum salary prong had changed before the said case. The reason for that is quite clear. The United States Supreme Court is itself not clear as to what nature of employees are exempt under the overtime pay and what employees are covered under it. The court in the year of 2009 stated that the sales representative come under the purview of non-exempt employee and are eligible to be paid under the over-time payment law. However, in the similar case, the court had a different view. It allowed the smith company to not pay for the overtime of the same employees. So the outcome of the case may or may not have been different had the minimum salary prong changed before the smith case went before the united States Supreme Court.
The category exemption under the Novartis case presented before the honourable Supreme Court is as under
- The company argued that the employees who are working sales representatives are administrative employees who are exempted under the overtime payment law. Having said that, it was also established before the court that –
  - The sales representatives have no role to play in the marketing strategy of the company.
  - They also do not carry any power to deliver any messages on behalf of the company to the doctors they visit.
  - The representatives are required to promote the given drug as per the number of times as set by Novartis.
  - They are also required to hold a number of events in promotion of the set drugs.

In case of smith, following arguments were established

Similarly, in the case of Smith Company, the sales representatives were paid on the basis of performance which would depend on the sale made by them. It was however, undisputed that the people working as sales representative were not paid fixed amount when they paid 40 hours a week but were paid as per the competitive norms set by the company.
It was also established that expenses which the sales representatives incurred due to the business expenses were paid by the company only.
Following the arguments mentioned above, it was well contented that the employees were the administrative employees and are not entitled to overtime payment made by the company to its labour class employees.

1. According to the common law, it is established that the whistle-blower policy shall be applicable to the people working for the public good at any public or private place. The appellant filed the petition that the common law applied to her as well and contained in her arguments that as per the common law, since she was terminated doing the job for public service by stopping the line of production to produce chickens in the unhygienic conditions. However, the trial court thought differently. The court declared that the common law did not apply to her as the policy of serving the large section of general public was not clearly established by appellant and hence the trial court rightly rejected the contention of the appellant. It is to be noted that whether the appellant had or had not called the government officers would have made a difference to the outcome of the case. This is so because had the employee called the government officials herself and then the employee would have been terminated. This case would have been covered under the common law and the employment at will doctrine could have been established by the appellant after which the case could have been won.
2. She lost her case because of the two main reasons mentioned below –
  - She failed to established that the common law applied to her in the case where she had not voluntarily called the government officials due to which her chicken line was closed and as a reason of that consequently, she lost her job.
  - Again, she failed to establish that this was an exception to the doctrine of employment at will due to which the court dismissed her argument that she was removed from her employment and that termination fell under the whistle-blower policy. Consequently, she lost the case.

Situation where she could have won the case

in case where she would have called the government officials herself which would have resulted in closing of chicken line resulting in termination of the job. She could have won the case as she would have been terminated on the basis of common law and then in such case, she would have been able to prove that her case fell under the above said purview of law which could have given her fair chances to win the case.

Obergefell Decision

Summary

The case was listed in the Supreme Court in 2015. It is a case of same sex marriage and the rights of the couples involved. It also focuses on the rights of the gay couples and the legality of those rights in the constitution of America. The couple were a gay couple committed into a relationship for over two decades. However, one of the partners was diagnosed with a degenerative disease which led to couples flying to Ohio to get married where the gay marriages are legal. However, their home state declined to recognize the surviving partner’s name on the death certificate of the dead person due to which the appellant moved to the court. Finally, after the due arguments in the court, the defense of marriage act was struck down by the Supreme Court which compelled all the 48 states in the country to legalize the same sex marriage.

The precedent set in the above said case was to be applied to the population as a whole. The decision or the precedent set in the case applied to the two people’s personal lives and the millions of people living in United States of America. It was concerned with the personal lives of people and not with the people whether they were working in the private sector or the public sector.

Brown v. Board of Education case is considered as one of the most landmark case in the history of United States law. The case was landmark in sense that it ended the need of separate schools for both black and white children. The court had listened to the arguments and came to the conclusion that the separate educational facilities were too unequal to the fundamental rights of the Native Americans. The arguments established in the case were that the concept of separate schools was violation of the 14^th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The standard set in the case of discrimination of the people should never be based on the race, sexual inclination, religion or cast. The discrimination should never be based on the place where the person is borne or any other factor on which the person has no control or is by nature that way. Similar was the case arguments in Obergefell decision where the same

Sex marriage was made legal by the Supreme Court of United States America in the year 2015.

There are several challenges faced by EEOC or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which states that the discrimination in job on the basis of sex inclination of the person shall be contravention of the Civil Rights Act and shall be dealt accordingly. The regulations have been challenged by several of the employers working in the private sector stating that this is their personal choice to employee which people they should hire or not. The legal petitions were filed against the guidelines imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which are being heard by the Supreme Court of United States of America by the Obergefell. Battle of branches would mean that the executive would be stuck if all the states would start fighting with each other or compete with each other over the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines. Once the executives are not able to manage the states fighting over the 14^th Amendment guidelines followed by the Equal Employment opportunity Commission, the vulnerability of the executive in such scenario would be exposed and it would lead to a legal mayhem.

The Congress could undermine the regs by overstating the facts in relation to the guidelines of the EEOC. The courts may also lead to decision where after the Obergefell case; they may consider this as a landmark judgment and state that the states are only following the decision of the court which may further worsen the situation to a great extent.

The win or lose is decided in the court of law in the basis of the arguments presented in the case.

Legal win

The legal win is going to be of the person who could establish that the guidelines adopted by the EEOC are in consonance of the Civil Rights Act and hence must be followed by the private sector employee. The court if convinced shall abolish the guidelines of EEOC.

It seems however that the case of EEOC is quite weak and the courts may go in favour of branches leading to a negative judgement for the Congress.

Political Win

– if the decision of the court in favor of EEOC is given, then it would be a political victory for the government. However, if the decision is given against the EEOC guidelines, then it would be a severe blow to the government as there are millions of people of LGBT community who are living in United States of America and this would create mayhem for them. Their jobs would be endangered and hence, they will not be have the job security which would create discontentment against the continuing government leading to a massive retaliation which if not corrected in time would lead to a law and order situation and additionally will be reflected in the performance of the government in the next elections.