Tenth Amendment violation in California

1997The only other case to date in the last half-century where a Tenth Amendment claim was sustained by the United States Supreme Court was in National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) 426 U.S. 833, 844-852 [ 96 S.Ct. 2465, 2470-2474 , 49 L.Ed.2d 245 ] where the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to public employees was invalidated as violative of the Tenth Amendment.

1997The only other case to date in the last half-century where a Tenth Amendment claim was sustained by the United States Supreme Court was in National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) 426 U.S. 833, 844-852 [ 96 S.Ct. 2465, 2470-2474 , 49 L.Ed.2d 245 ] where the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to public employees was invalidated as violative of the Tenth Amendment.

2007I, § 8, cl.3), not the states, [¶] To the extent that section 360.6 may be deemed to be an incorporation by reference of the ICWA, the issue [with regard to due process and equal protection] remains that of whether the ICWA embodies a compelling state interest that is closely tailored to the purpose of Congress's enactment as applied to this child." ( Santos, at p. 1317, 112 Cal. Rptr.2d 692 .) "Section 360.6 [also] does not avoid a Tenth Amendment violation.

2007I, § 8, cl.3), not the states, [¶] To the extent that section 360.6 may be deemed to be an incorporation by reference of the ICWA, the issue [with regard to due process and equal protection] remains that of whether the ICWA embodies a compelling state interest that is closely tailored to the purpose of Congress's enactment as applied to this child." ( Santos, at p. 1317, 112 Cal. Rptr.2d 692 .) "Section 360.6 [also] does not avoid a Tenth Amendment violation.

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997(U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, 801-802 [ 115 S.Ct. 1842, 1853-1854 , 131 L.Ed.2d 881, 899-900 ] [Tenth Amendment does not allow states to add to qualifications for members of Congress]; New York v. United States, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 171-174 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 2425-2427] [federal funding requirements and regulation of regional compacts for disposal of radioactive waste (42 U.S.C. § 202le et seq.) not violative of Tenth Amendment]; Missouri v. Jenkins (1990) 495 U.S. 33, 55 [ 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1665 , 109 L.Ed.2d 31 ] [no Tenth Amendment violation when federal court orde

1997I, § 8, cl. 1), conditions receipt of federal highway funds on raising drinking age]; Hunter v. Underwood (1985) 471 U.S. 222, 225 [ 105 S.Ct. 1916, 1918-1919 , 85 L.Ed.2d 222 ] [state act violative of Fourteenth Amendment not valid under Tenth Amendment]; Garcia v. San Antonio Metro.

1997I, § 8, cl. 1), conditions receipt of federal highway funds on raising drinking age]; Hunter v. Underwood (1985) 471 U.S. 222, 225 [ 105 S.Ct. 1916, 1918-1919 , 85 L.Ed.2d 222 ] [state act violative of Fourteenth Amendment not valid under Tenth Amendment]; Garcia v. San Antonio Metro.

1985Fla. 1978) 449 F.Supp. 274, 284-285 , cert. den. 441 U.S. 931 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 659 , 99 S.Ct. 2051 ]; see City of Macon v. Marshall (M.D.Ga. 1977) 439 F.Supp. 1209, 1217-1218 .) As was said by the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Padley (1976) 195 Neb. 358 [ 237 N.W.2d 883 ] in rejecting a similar Tenth Amendment challenge to the same federal legislation challenged herein: “We are at a loss to follow this reasoning.

1985Fla. 1978) 449 F.Supp. 274, 284-285 , cert. den. 441 U.S. 931 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 659 , 99 S.Ct. 2051 ]; see City of Macon v. Marshall (M.D.Ga. 1977) 439 F.Supp. 1209, 1217-1218 .) As was said by the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Padley (1976) 195 Neb. 358 [ 237 N.W.2d 883 ] in rejecting a similar Tenth Amendment challenge to the same federal legislation challenged herein: “We are at a loss to follow this reasoning.

1985Fla. 1978) 449 F.Supp. 274, 284-285 , cert. den. 441 U.S. 931 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 659 , 99 S.Ct. 2051 ]; see City of Macon v. Marshall (M.D.Ga. 1977) 439 F.Supp. 1209, 1217-1218 .) As was said by the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Padley (1976) 195 Neb. 358 [ 237 N.W.2d 883 ] in rejecting a similar Tenth Amendment challenge to the same federal legislation challenged herein: “We are at a loss to follow this reasoning.

1985Fla. 1978) 449 F.Supp. 274, 284-285 , cert. den. 441 U.S. 931 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 659 , 99 S.Ct. 2051 ]; see City of Macon v. Marshall (M.D.Ga. 1977) 439 F.Supp. 1209, 1217-1218 .) As was said by the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Padley (1976) 195 Neb. 358 [ 237 N.W.2d 883 ] in rejecting a similar Tenth Amendment challenge to the same federal legislation challenged herein: “We are at a loss to follow this reasoning.

1984(See National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) 426 U.S. 833 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 245 , 96 S.Ct. 2465 ].) In holding there was no Tenth Amendment violation, the court stated “the basic premise and statutory scheme of the federal-state unemployment compensation program, which have remained unchanged since 1935, are based on the concept that a state is free to accept federal conditions by conforming to federal statutory requirements or can refuse to participate entirely.” (New Hampshire, supra, 616 F.2d at p. 245.) New Hampshire argued, as does the State in this case, that it had no real option of refusi

1982Assn. (1981) 452 U.S. 264, 288 [ 69 L.Ed.2d 1, 23 , 101 S.Ct. 2352 ], the Supreme Court clarified its holding in National League of Cities v. Usery, supra, 426 U.S. 833 , stating that an essential requirement for the Tenth Amendment immunity there recognized is the factor that “it must be apparent that the States’ compliance with the federal law would directly impair their ability ‘to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.’ [Citation.]” (Fn. omitted, italics added.) It is unnec *996 essary to decide whether plaintiffs scuba diving was an integral operatio

1982Assn. (1981) 452 U.S. 264, 288 [ 69 L.Ed.2d 1, 23 , 101 S.Ct. 2352 ], the Supreme Court clarified its holding in National League of Cities v. Usery, supra, 426 U.S. 833 , stating that an essential requirement for the Tenth Amendment immunity there recognized is the factor that “it must be apparent that the States’ compliance with the federal law would directly impair their ability ‘to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.’ [Citation.]” (Fn. omitted, italics added.) It is unnec *996 essary to decide whether plaintiffs scuba diving was an integral operatio