Citation network
Ferc Vs. Mississippi
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 1982
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 742 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court FERC v. MississippiSearch
-
U.S. 742 (1982) FERC v. MississippiSearch
-
the very type of adjudicatory activity customarily engaged in by the Mississippi Public Service Commission. Testa v. KattSearch
-
but simply establish requirements for continued state activity in an otherwise preemptible field. Cf. Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Id. at 2a. Relying on Carter v. CarterSearch
-
Id. at 7a. Relying on National League of Cities v. UserySearch
-
Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
promulgated under one of Congress' plenary powers. The applicable standard was reiterated just last Term in Hodel v. IndianaSearch
-
the burdens and benefits of economic life come to the Court with a presumption of constitutionality. . . .' Usery v. TurnerSearch
-
Carter Page 456 U. S. 755 v. CarterSearch
-
power transmission may be proper because of the interstate nature of the generation and supply of electric power. FPC v. FloridaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Our inquiry, then, is whether the congressional findings Page 456 U. S. 756 have a rational basis. Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
and every commercial or manufacturing facility. No State relies solely on its own resources in this respect. See FPC v. FloridaSearch
-
Public Service Commission, bring them within the reach of Congress' power over interstate commerce. See FPC v. FloridaSearch
-
New England Power Co. v. NewSearch
-
Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Surface Mining & Recl. Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 276 , quoting Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
as state commissions, the statute necessarily is valid at least insofar as it regulates private parties. See Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Tenth Amendment issue presented here is somewhat novel. This case obviously is related to National League of Cities v. UserySearch
-
of state sovereignty. But there is a significant difference as well. National League of Cities, like Fry v. UnitedSearch
-
gas utilities and in the regulation of transactions between such utilities and cogenerators. Cf. Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
valid exercise of the commerce power -- was made clear in National League of Cities, and was reaffirmed in Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Id. at 330 U. S. 392 , quoting Mondou v. NewSearch
-
is perhaps the quintessential attribute of sovereignty. See National League of Cities v. UserySearch
-
Indeed, having the power to make decisions and to set policy is what gives the State its sovereign nature. See Bates v. StateSearch
-
U. S. 107 (1861). Recent cases, however, demonstrate that this rigid and isolated statement from Kentucky v. DennisonSearch
-
has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations, cf. EPA v. BrownSearch
-
structures that, in effect, directed state decisionmakers to take or to refrain from taking certain actions. in Fry v. UnitedSearch
-
state employees, to the wage and salary limitations established by the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970. Washington v. WashingtonSearch
-
And certainly Testa v. KattSearch
-
the States entirely in the regulation of private utilities. In a sense, then, this case is only one step beyond Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Coyle v. OklahomaSearch
-
Fry v. UnitedSearch
-
to induce state action in areas that otherwise would be beyond Congress' regulatory authority. Thus, in Oklahoma v. CSCSearch
-
ibid., quoting United States v. DarbySearch
-
concerning nongovernmental activity, no matter what the strength of the competing local interests. See Martin v. Hunter'sSearch
-
as in Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
In this light, we again find the principle of Testa v. KattSearch
-
provisions of Titles I ad III must be validated under the principle of Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.' Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
of interstate commerce . . . or persons or things in commerce,' but also to 'activities affecting commerce.' Perez v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court FERC v. MississippiSearch
-
the Mississippi Public Service Commission. Testa v. KattSearch
-
Cf. Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Carter v. CarterSearch
-
Usery v. TurnerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial