Federalism: Selected Opinions of Judge Samuel Alito (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (18 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Dec. 30, 2005 |
| Report Number |
RL33214 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Kenneth R. Thomas and Todd B. Tatelman, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
During his 15 years as a federal appellate judge on the Third Circuit, Judge Samuel Alito has
written
several opinions related to federalism. Two of these cases appear to be of particular significance.
In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development , Judge Alito
authored a
unanimous opinion which held that an individual could not sue a state under the Family Medical
Leave Act (FMLA). This opinion addressed an issue which has been controversial in recent years
-- the parameters of the 11th Amendment and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. The decision held
that a provision of the Family Medical Leave Act which mandates the provision of sick leave for
employees with serious health conditions could not be enforced by employees against states agencies
or instrumentalities.
In United States v. Rybar , Judge Alito authored a dissent to a decision that upheld
a law
providing that "it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun" as within
the authority of the Congress under the Commerce Clause. Judge Alito, noting that the statute lacked
both a requirement for a specific connection to interstate commerce and findings that the purely
intrastate possession of machine guns had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, would have
struck the law down.
In general, it appears that Judge Alito's opinion in the Chittister case was consistent
with
Supreme Court precedent at the time. Although Judge Alito has been criticized because his opinion
did not anticipate the result in the subsequent case of Nevada Department of Human Resources
v.
Hibbs , the Hibbs case actually addressed a separate provision of the FMLA. The
Chittister case is
arguably distinguishable from the Hibbs case, a conclusion which has been reached by
other federal
circuits.
Judge Alito's dissent in the Rybar case, however, seems to have anticipated a more
expansive
application of the Supreme Court decisions in Lopez and Morrison than was
being utilized by most
other circuits at the time. Further, his reasoning in Rybar may have been repudiated by
the Supreme
Court in Gonzales v. Raich . Consequently, it would appear that Judge Alito's dissent
was an
argument for a more limited interpretation of the Commerce Clause than is consistent with current
case law.
