Also known as: central governments · federal government
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A national government that exercises authority over subordinate political units within a federal system. The central government possesses enumerated powers under the Constitution while states retain reserved powers.
Caitlin Crowley, a parent in the District of Columbia, sued federal education officials after her child was assigned to a racially segregated public school. The central government defended the assignment under local policy. The court applied the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and invalidated the segregation as arbitrary discrimination lacking justification.
Christine Castro, a state sheriff, refused a federal directive requiring her deputies to perform handgun purchaser background checks under a new statute. The central government insisted the checks were mandatory. The court held that the directive violated the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state officers.
Craig Caldwell and his same-sex spouse, married under state law, sought federal tax benefits denied by a statute defining marriage as opposite-sex only. The central government enforced the exclusion. The court ruled the definition violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause by discriminating without adequate justification.
Cassandra Cooper, a bank teller, accepted a U.S. Treasury check with an irregular endorsement. The central government later sought recredit under uniform standards. The court applied federal common law rather than varying state rules to determine good faith and notice.
Caleb Chang faced federal juvenile proceedings after an alleged theft on government property. The central government sought conviction on a preponderance standard. The court required proof beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of due process before imposing liability.
During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing conducted pursuant to section 742 of the New York Family Court Act, a judge in New York Family Court found that the twelve-year-old appellant had entered a locker and stolen one hundred twelve dollars from a woman's pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of larceny. The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but relied on section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which provides that any determination at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing that a juvenile did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of eighteen months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his eighteenth birthday, six years in appellant's case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of section 744(b). The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseCecilia Cabrera was charged under a federal statute after carrying a firearm near a school. The central government asserted broad commerce power. The court held the statute exceeded enumerated powers because it lacked a sufficient connection to interstate commerce.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseThe central government is subject to an equal protection component through the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause even though the Fourteenth Amendment text applies only to states. Grossly unreasonable federal discrimination, such as racial segregation in District of Columbia schools, violates due process.
No. The anti-commandeering principle prohibits the central government from issuing directives that require states or their officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Provisions forcing state law enforcement to conduct background checks were invalidated on this ground.
A federal statute excluding same-sex couples from the definitions of marriage and spouse violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause when it demeans and disadvantages marriages lawfully recognized by states. The central government must justify any such distinction.
Federal common law supplies uniform rules for issues implicating uniquely federal interests, such as the negotiability of checks payable by the United States. State law variations are displaced to ensure consistent treatment of the central government's commercial paper.
…Two Terms ago, in United States v. Windsor , 570 U. S. (2013), this Court invalidated DOMA to the extent it barred the Federal Government from treating same-sex marriages as valid even when they were lawful in the State where they were licensed. DOMA, the Court held, impermissibly disparaged those same-sex couples “who wanted…