UNBIASED - Unbiased University: Everything You Need to Know About the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the United States Constitution

Episode Date: March 5, 2026

UNBIASED University is in session! While Jordan is on maternity leave, she’s breaking down the most critical aspects of the United States government — the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of the federal government, presidential elections, the evolution of political parties, and more. In this episode of UNBIASED Politics, we continue the UNBIASED University series by examining the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These amendments focus on the rights of individuals within the legal system and the balance of power between the federal government, the states, and the people. What protections exist in civil trials, what limits does the Constitution place on punishments, and how does the Constitution address rights that are not specifically listed? We break down the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, the prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, the recognition that unenumerated rights may still exist, and the principle that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This episode provides a clear, nonpartisan overview of how these often less-discussed amendments continue to shape constitutional law and federalism today. Intro (0:00) 7th Amendment (3:48) 8th Amendment (11:37) 9th Amendment (~28:41) 10th Amendment (~35:33) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics and to the Unbiased University series. Today we are talking about amendments 7,8, 9, and 10 of the Bill of Rights, which will wrap up our Bill of Rights discussion. While I'm on maternity leave, I want you to think of this unbiased university series as a condensed law school education. I want you to imagine that every time you're tuning into one of these episodes, you are sitting down in a 30 to 45 minute law school class, sometimes a little bit longer,

depending on, you know, the topic at hand. And in each class, we cover a different topic and we talk about various cases and laws that have shaped those topics. If you've ever wanted to go to law school or you've ever considered going to law school, you will love this series, hopefully, or maybe you realize that law school is not for you, right? By the end of unbiased university, you will have obtained your imaginary degree from unbiased university, which means, you will be fully prepared for the show when I come back for maternity leave and get back to reporting on current events because all of these concepts that we are talking about in each of these episodes, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of government,

the Supreme Court, presidential elections, et cetera, et cetera, they're all in the background of every single current event that we talk about. So it's really important that we understand these concepts. Now, although I am on maternity leave just as a reminder, if you are still interested and getting an unbiased rundown of current events. I am still cranking out articles on sub-sac when I can. If you're interested in subscribing, it is free. Just click the link in the show notes of this episode. Now, the first episode in this series was all about the United States Constitution. If you haven't yet listened to that, I highly recommend listening to that episode first and then tuning into this episode. It's not a necessity. I do think it'll help you get the proper foundation for this episode.

but again, not a, you know, 100% necessity to do so. Over the course of the last two episodes, we covered amendments one through six to the Constitution. And in today's episode, we will finish the Bill of Rights by covering the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments to the Constitution. So without further ado, let's get into today's episode. Okay. As I briefly mentioned just a second ago, the 10 amendments to the Constitution make up what

we call the Bill of Rights. When it came time to ratify the Constitution, and for those of you that have tuned into every episode, this is going to sound a little bit repetitive, but I do have to give this introduction for those who may be new here. When it came time to ratify the Constitution, multiple states were concerned that the Constitution did not adequately address personal liberties. So the framers made a promise to the states through the Massachusetts compromise that once the constitution was ratified, they would get to work on amendments to guarantee you. personal liberties, and that is exactly what they did. To really understand the amendments, it is important to understand one thing. The framers of the Constitution were very against

concentrated government power. They had just fought a war to escape it. They were not about to allow the United States government to usurp the same amount of power that the British government had. So the first 10 amendments are really about setting boundaries on what the government can and can't control. Unlike the amendments we discussed in the last episode, these amendments, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are less about criminal procedure and more about limiting government power, preserving individual rights, and clarifying the balance between federal authority and the power of the states and the people. So let's start with the 7th Amendment. The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. And as we talked about in the last episode, the Sixth Amendment

guarantees a right to a jury trial for all serious offenses, which is generally defined as offenses with a potential prison sentence of more than six months. But the Seventh Amendment applies to our right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. So criminal cases deal with criminal charges brought by the government, whether state or federal. Civil cases are disputes between private parties. So maybe I sue you for negligence or you sue your employer for retaliation or company X sues company Y for trademark infringement. These are civil cases, not criminal cases, okay? Maybe someone, maybe you sue a former boss for defamation. These are civil matters. Criminal matters are criminal charges. Okay. So with the

Seventh Amendment tells us is that we have a guaranteed right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. The exact text of the amendment says, quote, in suits at common law where the value and controversy exceeds a certain amount, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of common law. In other words, in federal civil cases, in involving disputes of more than $20. Parties have the right to have the facts decided by a jury, and courts cannot overturn a jury's factual findings.

Nowadays, courts can overturn a jury's factual finding in certain circumstances, but those exceptions were created over the courts of history through various cases, which we'll talk more about in a minute. But as with most amendments, the reason the framers felt it was important to include this amendment that specified our right to a jury. trial in civil cases is because under British rule, the colonists didn't like the fact that royal judges rather than juries of ordinary people were deciding disputes. And many people felt that those judges were biased in favor of the king because of their

government position. These judges worked for the king, essentially. So the framers wanted to ensure that ordinary citizens, not just government-appointed judges, would continue to play a central role. in the justice system. One thing to keep in mind about the Seventh Amendment is that it mostly applies to federal civil trials. It has not yet been incorporated against the states like some of the other amendments have.

So the Seventh Amendment would apply to a federal copyright lawsuit or a federal employment discrimination case or maybe a case between two big companies that are incorporated in different states. The Seventh Amendment would not apply to a lawsuit. that, let's say, a landlord files against a tenant for unpaid rent because that would be a state case where the jury depends on state law. The Seventh Amendment similarly wouldn't apply to a case where a driver sues another driver because of a car crash. Again, that's a state case. Divorce cases, same thing. Seventh Amendment does not apply. So to keep it as simple as possible,

the Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in certain civil cases only in federal court. State courts are governed by their own state constitutions and laws, which might have similar jury trial requirements, but they're not required to. And the other thing to keep in mind, too, is that this is a right you have the option to assert as a party to a case. But the parties don't have to use a jury. So if both parties choose to waive their right to a jury, the case will instead be decided by a judge. That's known as a bench trial rather than a jury trial because the judge is deciding the case from the bench. Now, a couple of important cases that have helped shape the Seventh Amendment over the years. The first was Parsons v. Bedford in 1830.

This was a very early Supreme Court case about the right to a jury trial in civil cases. And the dispute involved a lawsuit for damages. And the court was asked whether the Seventh Amendment's jury trial guarantee applied to federal courts located in Louisiana. And the Supreme Court held that it does. So that means that once a case is in federal law, court, the Constitution's jury trial protections apply, even if the lawsuit itself is based on state law. Because remember, in each state, there are federal courts and there are state courts. So let's say you live in North Florida and you sue a Georgia construction company for breach of

contract and you're seeking more than $75,000. You could bring your case in federal court. So although the contract dispute would arise from either Georgia state law or Florida state law, on where the contract was signed, the case is still heard in federal court and your seventh amendment right to a jury trial attaches. On the other hand, if a landlord sues you for unpaid rent in Florida, that's a dispute for a state court and the seventh amendment right to a jury trial wouldn't apply. Any jury right would have to come from Florida law in that case and not the constitution. And there's also this whole other element to, you know, civil cases that deal with

jurisdiction and which courts have jurisdiction. We're not getting into all of that today. For purposes of this discussion, we're just generally talking about the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial. So again, Parsons is the case that said regardless of where the case is actually heard or, you know, which laws are at the center of the case. So long as it's heard in a federal court, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial attaches. Another notable Seventh Amendment case is DeMickford. versus shite. This was a 1935 case where the Supreme Court said that a judge cannot increase the amount of money awarded by a jury in a civil case. If a jury awards $500, that's what it is. The judge can't

raise it to a higher amount just because he or she feels it should be higher. However, the court also recognize that judges can reduce an excessively large award so long as they have the plaintiff's consent. So a judge can't increase a jury's damages award because that would replace the jury's factual decision with the judge's own decision. But if a judge thinks the jury's award is too high, the judge can offer the plaintiff a choice, either accept a reduced award or request a new trial. And since the plaintiff has to agree to the reduction, the jury's role isn't considered overridden in the same way it would be if the judge were allowed to increase the award amount. then there was Colgrove v. Baton in 1973, where the Supreme Court said a six-person jury is constitutional in federal civil cases.

Back then, juries typically consisted of 12 people, but a local federal court in Montana adopted this rule that allowed a six-person jury, and that rule was challenged on the basis that, based on historical practice, the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial to have a 12-person. jury. But the Supreme Court said no. A six-person jury is fine. It's constitutional so long as the jury functions as an effective fact-finding body. And those are really the three cases worth discussing when it comes to the Seventh Amendment. So the main takeaway here is that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in most federal civil cases. Next is the Eighth Amendment. Now, the Eighth Amendment is more related to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The Seventh Amendment is it's a bit out of place, if you ask me, okay? Because the Eighth Amendment limits the government's power to punish people or, you know,

sentence people. So the Fourth Amendment limited the government's ability to search and seize. The Fifth Amendment protects against government overreach and ensures we get due process. And the Sixth Amendment focuses on fair trials once someone is charged. The Eighth Amendment deals with actual sentencing and punishment. So it just feels like they fit together. And then the Seventh Amendment kind of just threw things off with this right. right to a jury trial in federal civil cases. But now we're kind of getting back to the criminal

cases with the Eighth Amendment. So the Eighth Amendment specifically prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. And again, tying it back to the early days under British rule, the framers didn't particularly like the harsh punishments that were used in England. And they wanted to make it clear that any punishment in the United States would be different. The government would be limited in what they could and couldn't do. Now, the amendment itself is pretty short and to the point. It just says excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. That's it. So, of course, over time, the Supreme Court has had to interpret what the amendment actually means

in practice, right? And what they've determined is that the punishments have to be proportionate to the crime and can't utilize methods that are considered to be barbaric, or otherwise inconsistent with modern standards of decency. So what we're going to do is we're going to take our first break here. When we come back, we will walk through some of the more important Supreme Court cases that have helped shape the Eighth Amendment into what it is today. Welcome back. Before the break, we introduced the Eighth Amendment.

Now I want to walk through some of the more important Eighth Amendment cases, starting with Weems v. United States in 1910. And the reason these cases are so important, and this is a theme throughout every amendment that we've talked about, okay? But especially the Eighth Amendment, it is so short. It is one sentence, three clauses, three phrases, if you will. The Supreme Court has had to do a lot of interpreting. So all of these cases are very important.

Okay, so like I said, we'll start with Weems v. United States in 1910. This is the case that said the Eighth Amendment is not just limited to torture, but also to any punishment that is disproportionate to the crime. So a man named Paul Weems, he was a government official in the U.S. controlled Philippine Islands when he was convicted of falsifying a public record. So Weems had prepared the official cash book entries related to government transactions. And prosecutors alleged that he knowingly made false entries in an official accounting record entered information that incorrectly reflected the amounts involved in certain transactions

and did so in a way that made the records inaccurate and misleading. But the important thing in this case was that the false entries, the false entries didn't involve major fraud, okay? But despite not involving major fraud, he was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, a monetary fine, a permanent loss of certain civil rights, ongoing government supervision,

an imprisonment that required him to wear chains during his confinement. So Weems appeals this sentence, and he argues that this punishment is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. And the Supreme Court agreed. And the court held that the punishment was unconstitutionally cruel and unusual because it was quote unquote grossly disproportionate to the relatively minor offense. And in this case, the court developed two very important principles. One was that the punishment has to be graduated and proportionate to the offense.

The other was that the Eighth Amendment is not. limited to punishments considered cruel in the 18th century. Instead, it can evolve as society's standards of justice evolve. So that was weems. The next big case is Furman versus Georgia in 1972. And this was a big one because it temporarily halted the death penalty across the country. So the facts of this case go like this. Furman was in the process of robbing a house when he was caught by someone who lived in the house. And he attempted to flee, actually, but in doing so, he tripped and fell.

And when he fell, his gun went off and he killed the person that caught him in the house, okay? He was ultimately convicted of murder and he was sentenced to death, but he appealed his sentence arguing that the death sentence violated his Eighth Amendment. And it's important to add that Furman was decided along two other death penalty cases,

one that stemmed from a rape conviction and another that stemmed from a murder conviction. But the question for the court when assessing these three cases together was whether the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. And the Supreme Court said yes. In more than 200 pages of concurrence and dissents, the nine justices explained their views on this.

And only two of the justices, Brennan and Marshall, felt that the death penalty was, unconstitutional in all situations, okay? But other concurrences felt that the death sentences in these three cases in particular were arbitrary and capricious. Or another way to say that is like random and inconsistent. So the court basically found that the death penalty was being applied in a way that relied less on the facts of the crime and more so on other unpredictable factors, like which jury heard the case, where the trial took place, the skin color of the defendant, et cetera. So the court didn't go as far as to declare the death penalty itself permanently unconstitutional,

but what it did do is it invalidated the sentencing schemes that were in place across the country and temporarily paused all executions until all of the states and Congress rewrote their laws to provide clear standards and make sure that the death penalty wouldn't be administered in this capricious or discriminatory way. So that was 1972. Four years later in 1976, the court allowed the death penalty to pick back up again. So it was on pause for four years while the states kind of rewrote their laws and Congress rewrote laws. The decision in 1976 stemmed from a case called Greg versus Georgia. A man named Tori Gregg was convicted of armed. robbery and murder and subsequently sentenced to death under Georgia's revised death penalty statute

in the wake of Furman. So Georgia's new law required separate guilt and sentencing phases, which is something we see everywhere now. The first phase of a trial is the guilt phase. And then if the defendant is found guilty, then it moves on to a separate sentencing phase. Georgia's new law also required the jury to find at least one aggravating circumstance to impose death, meaning one circumstance that made the situation worse. And then third, Georgia's new law allowed automatic appellate review of death sentences. So Greg, the defendant, challenges his death

sentence and he argues that even though Georgia revised its law, the death penalty itself violates the Eighth Amendment and therefore his death sentence was unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court said no. The death penalty is not inherently unconstitutional. The court said that when the states use sentencing procedures that guide jury discretion, that require findings of aggravated factors, that provide meaningful appellate review, the death penalty can be imposed consistently with the Eighth Amendment. So after the decision in Gregg, the death penalty was revived so long as the capital sentencing laws around the country met the requirements that the court set forth in the Gregg

decision. then we got Atkins versus Virginia in 2002, which held that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment. So a man named Daryl Atkins was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery, and capital murder after he and an accomplice kidnapped a man, robbed him, and then shot him to death. And during sentencing, the defense presented psychological evidence showing that Atkins had an IQ of roughly 59 and he was intellectually disabled. Despite that evidence, though, the jury sentenced him to death, and the sentence was upheld on appeal. So Atkins then went to the Supreme Court, and the question for the Supreme Court was whether

the execution of intellectually disabled defendants violates the Eighth Amendment. And the Supreme Court said yes. And in coming to that decision, the court took into account the fact that since it had last confronted the issue, multiple states had come to the conclusion that death is not a suitable punishment for intellectually disabled criminals, but also the court had concerns about whether, you know, either justification that was used for the death penalty, those being retribution and deterrence of capital crimes, applied to these individuals with intellectual disabilities, because these individuals that had intellectual disabilities had a diminished ability to understand consequences, impaired judgment, impaired reasoning, they were more susceptible.

to pressure or manipulation. So there were concerns about whether the two main justifications that were used to uphold the death penalty applied to these intellectually disabled people. And because the court found that they didn't, they said that intellectually disabled people cannot be sentenced to death under the Eighth Amendment. That's cruel and unusual. And I should also mention that the court relied in part on these evolving standards of decency that I mentioned earlier. So in that early case, there was the case that said basically, you know, the cruel and unusual standard can evolve with society's expectations of what's cruel and unusual. So back in the 18th century, society would have thought one thing was cruel and unusual.

And today they think something totally different. And so the court found that those evolving standards reflected this growing national view at the time that executing intellectually disabled defendants had become unacceptable. So that was Atkins in 2002. Then we got Roper versus Simmons in 2005, which held that executing people for crimes committed as minors is unconstitutional. And a similar case followed in 2010 called Graham v. Florida, where the Supreme Court held that sentencing minors to life without parole for non-homicide cases is also unconstitutional.

And then two years after that, actually, in 2012, the court ruled in a case called Miller versus Alabama, that even in homicide cases, minors cannot automatically get life without parole. So if we take Roper, Graham, and Miller together, basically what these three cases tell us is that in no situation can someone be sentenced to death for a crime they committed as a minor. If a minor commits a homicide offense, life without parole is possible, but it can't automatically be imposed. And if a minor commits a non-homicide offense, they, cannot get life without parole at all. So those are those three cases taken together. And then the last notable case we have to mention is Tims v. Indiana. This was a 2019 case where the Supreme Court held

that the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment also applies to the states. So not just the federal government, but also to the states. A man named Tyson Timms had bought a car in 2013 for $42,000. And he proceeded to use that car to try. transport and sell heroin until one day he sold heroin to some undercover cops and he was arrested and he ended up pleading guilty to various offenses. He was sentenced to six years, five of which were suspended. And then he also had some fines and cost totaling about $1,200. In addition to that, the state tried to forfeit Tim's car. The lower court denied the state's attempt to take the car, finding that the forfeiture would be an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment because it was

disproportional to the seriousness of the offense. And the court noted that the maximum fine for Tim's felony dealing charge was $10,000. And the car was worth roughly four times that when Tim's bought it. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed and found that the United States Supreme Court had never clearly incorporated the Eighth Amendment excessive fines clause against the state. states and therefore Indiana wasn't bound by it. So the case goes to the United States Supreme Court and the question for the justices was whether the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause had been incorporated against the states or whether it just applied to the federal government. And the court said yes, it applies to the states as well, that the excessive fines clause has its

origins in the Magna Carta and as such, it's a fundamental right that is very deeply rooted in our country's history and tradition. And therefore, it applies to the states just as it does. against the federal government. So three takeaways from the Eighth Amendment. Number one, it limits how the government can punish people. Two, the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime. And three, the meaning of cruel and unusual can evolve over time based on society's standards of decency.

And that takes us to the Ninth Amendment. Keep in mind that the first eight amendments to the Constitution mostly list individual rights, but the 9th and 10th amendments kind of step back and explain how to think about rights and government powers overall. So what the 9th Amendment says is the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. And what that's saying is that certain rights being listed in the Constitution enumerate enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean that people don't have other rights that aren't written in the Constitution. So the Ninth Amendment says so little, yet it says so much at the same

time, right? The framers knew that it wouldn't be possible to write down every single right that people possess. And at the same time, they were concerned that if the Constitution listed only some rights, future governments might argue that only those listed rights were protected. But the 9th Amendment made sure that future governments were on notice, that there are other rights that we have as people that exist outside of those explicitly listed in the Constitution. And if there's any amendment that we desperately need the Supreme Court's interpretation, it's this one, because yes, it's so vague, but so many of our other rights, stem from this concept in the Ninth Amendment, which says we have other rights too, right?

This is not an, the Constitution is not an exhaustive list of our rights. And we'll, of course, talk about some of those Supreme Court cases in a second, but here's what I want to say. A lot of the cases that grant us additional rights that are not listed in the Constitution don't actually solely rely on the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment just kind of serves as this basic understanding that, yeah, there are going to be some rights that we have that are not listed in the Constitution. But the rights that have been granted to us that don't exist in the Constitution, more so have their footing in other amendments. And this will make sense as we get through these episodes. So I'll quickly cover some of these cases, but we'll actually cover some of these cases.

but we'll actually cover most of the cases in more detail in the next episode and the next two episodes actually because a lot of these cases are more rooted in the 14th Amendment as well as the Fifth Amendment, and in some cases the First Amendment. But basically what I'm trying to say here is just the Ninth Amendment serves this basic principle that, yes, we have other rights not listed in the Constitution, but these other rights that have been given to us, again, and I know I'm sounding repetitive, these other rights that have been given to us have footing in other amendments, not the 9th Amendment. So one case worth talking about, as an example, is Griswold v. Connecticut. This was a case that officially recognized a constitutional right

to marital privacy. And although it was a case based mostly on the 14th Amendment's due process clause, it did reference the 9th Amendment as support for the idea that not all rights are listed in the Constitution. Justice Goldberg's concurrence specifically already. argued that the 9th Amendment supports the existence of fundamental rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Then we have Roe v. Wade. I'm sure we all know this one, right? The constitutional right to abortion was established based again on the 14th Amendment, but it was supported by the 9th Amendment. The Constitution never mentions a right to abortion, but the court found one existed. Not anymore. It's since been overturned, but the court found one existed,

because of, in part, the 9th Amendment. And then there's Loving v. Virginia, where the court reaffirmed that the right to marry is a constitutional right, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. And again, the right was based on the 14th Amendment, but it was created indirectly through this principle laid out in the 9th Amendment. So really, the 9th Amendment isn't so much a direct source of substantive law, as much as it is a rule of construction to make sure that rights not listed in the Constitution aren't ignored. And while I usually like to leave you with three key takeaways for each amendment, there's just not really three key takeaways here. It's just one takeaway. The Ninth Amendment

reinforces this concept that we have rights beyond those specifically written in the Constitution. That's it. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we will finish this episode with the 10th Amendment. Welcome back. Okay, let's talk about the 10th and final amendment of the Bill of Rights, which focuses on the balance of power between the federal government, the states, and the people. What the 10th Amendment says is this. It says, quote, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. End quote. In other words, powers that the Constitution does not give to the federal government and doesn't prohibit to the state,

are reserved to the states or to the people. And again, like all of these other amendments that we've talked about, this one ties back to the idea that the federal government wasn't to obtain too much power. The framers made it clear that if a power isn't specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution, the federal government doesn't have it. But keep in mind that the 10th Amendment didn't explicitly grant rights or powers, right? It just said, hey, any powers that we didn't mention back when we wrote the Constitution, those are reserved for the states, so long as we didn't explicitly withhold them from the states. And the 10th Amendment really created this concept called federalism, which is the relationship and division of power between

federal governments or the federal government and state governments. The federal government has enumerated powers, which are those listed in the Constitution, the states have all other powers. These are also called reserved powers. So reserved powers are things like setting speed limits, establishing schools, creating local governments, regulating intrastate commerce, not to be confused with interstate commerce, running elections, creating marriage laws, issuing professional licenses, implementing welfare programs. All of these things are reserved to the states. Enumerated powers, on the other hand, include the power to collect taxes, borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, establish federal courts, create new post offices. These are powers

that are specifically given to the federal government. But at this point, we understand that the general idea that every amendment in the Bill of Rights has had to be further interpreted by the Supreme Court, right? The 10th Amendment is no exception. The first very big 10th Amendment case was McCulloch versus Maryland, which was decided all the way back in 1819. So Congress had gone ahead and chartered what was called the Second Bank of the United States and it opened a branch in Maryland. Well, Maryland decided it was going to pass a law that would impose taxes on banks not chartered by the state, which effectively targeted the second bank of the United States. but the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the second bank of the United States, his name was James McCulloch,

he refused to pay the Maryland state tax and they ended up going to court. The state appeals court held that the second bank was unconstitutional because the constitution did not explicitly allow the federal government to charter a bank. And even if the bank were valid, the state had the power to tax it. So the case gets appealed, it makes its way to the Supreme court and the questions for the court were number one, does Congress have constitutional authority to create a national bank under its implied powers? And two, can a state tax a federal institution created by Congress? And the court said, yes, Congress has the power to create a national bank. And no, states cannot tax federal institutions. So in answering the first question, the court said,

yes, Congress has the power to create a national bank because establishing a bank is a legitimate means of carrying out its enumerated powers like taxing, borrowing, and regulating commerce. And this is what's based, this is based on what's called the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution. So the Constitution says that Congress has the power to make laws that are necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers. And the Supreme Court clarified what that clause means. McCulloch versus Maryland by saying that Congress does in fact have the flexibility to use certain tools to carry out its constitutional responsibilities, including creating a national bank.

So even though the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the federal government the power to create a national bank, it has these other powers and the national bank is necessary to carry out those other powers that are explicitly mentioned. In answering the second, question, the court said, states cannot tax these federal institutions because doing so would allow states to interfere with or control federal operations. And when the federal government is acting within the powers that the Constitution gives it, states cannot interfere with those powers. So McCulloch was important for a few reasons. Number one, it established this doctrine of implied powers, meaning the federal government was not only limited to the powers explicitly listed in the

Constitution. It had other implied powers as well. Number two, it strengthened federal supremacy. It reinforced the principle that federal law is in fact supreme and overrides state law when they conflict. And then three, it better define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. It clarified that while states have important powers, they can't use their state powers to undermine federal operations. Another important 10th Amendment case was Hammer v. Dagenhart. This was a 1918 case, and it stemmed from Congress passing a law that banned the interstate shipment of goods that had been produced by mines or factories that employed children below a certain age or employed people under certain working conditions. And a man named Roland Dagenhart, whose two minor sons worked in a textile mill,

challenged the law. And he argued that Congress doesn't have any constitutional authority to regulate child labor conditions. So the question for the Supreme Court was whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by banning the interstate shipment of goods produced using child labor. And the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, just by the way, gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries between different states and with Native American tribes. So per the Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate trade between different states, interstate commerce, but regulating trade within a single state, which is intrust state commerce, is reserved to each individual state. It is not a power of.

for the federal government. So the court in Hammer ultimately said, yeah, Congress exceeded its authority here. The court held that Congress could not use the Commerce Clause power to regulate manufacturing conditions within particular states because production was considered a local activity that was reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. So even though Congress has a power to regulate trade between different states, Congress cannot govern the manufacturing conditions inside the states themselves. But this case was actually later overturned in 1941 in a case called United States versus Darby Lumber Company,

which we'll get to in a minute. Before we get to that case, I want to mention a case called National Labor Relations Board versus Jones and Loughlin Steel Corporation. This was a case decided in 1937. So Congress had passed the National Labor Relations Act, which created the National Labor Relations Board, and protected workers' rights to,

organize unions while also prohibiting employers from engaging in unfair labor practices. Well, Jones and Laughlin Steel, which was one of the country's biggest steel manufacturers, was accused of firing employees as a result of their union activities. So the National Labor Relations Board orders the company to reinstate the workers with back pay, but the company argues that Congress didn't have the authority to regulate labor relations inside a manufacturing business because manufacturing was a local activity, not interstate commerce. So the question for the court here was whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate labor relations inside manufacturing businesses whose activities affect interstate commerce. And the court said yes, Congress can regulate labor relations

inside businesses when those activities have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. So this marked a major expansion of federal regulatory power because before this case, decisions like the one in Hammer generally treated manufacturing and labor relations as local matters that were outside of Congress's authority. But with Jones and Laughlin, the court said, well, actually, no, Congress can regulate activities within a single state, within a single business, so long as those activities have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. And then a few years later, in 1941, we got United States v. Darby Lumber Company. In Darby, the Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set federal minimum wage

and maximum hour requirements and restricted the interstate shipment of goods produced under substandard labor conditions. The court actually rejected the earlier reasoning in Hammer and found that, one, Congress does have the power to regulate goods moving in interstate commerce, even if doing so affects manufacturing conditions within certain states. Two, the 10th Amendment doesn't limit Congress when it's acting within its Commerce Clause authority. And three, Hammer had taken too narrow of a view of federal power. So after 1941, Congress clearly had the authority to set labor standards for businesses whose activities affect interstate commerce, even if those businesses operate entirely within a single state.

The next Big Tenth Amendment case was New York versus United States, which invented what's now known as the anti-commandering doctrine. So Congress had passed a law to manage the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and the law encouraged states to develop disposal facilities by using various incentives if they did so. But one of the provisions of the law, known as the Take Title provision, required states that failed to dispose of their waste to take ownership of their waste and assume liability for it. So the state of New York challenges the law and argues Congress had unconstitutionally forced states to implement a federal regulatory program in violation of the 10th Amendment.

So the question for the court was whether Congress could compel state governments to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. And the court said no. Congress cannot commandeer state government. by forcing them to enact or administer these programs. The court clarified that Congress could encourage states to comply voluntarily, but, you know, provisions like this take title provision was unconstitutional because it effectively required states to regulate. Then there was a case called Prince v. United States in 1997, which basically completed this anti-commandering doctrine. Congress had passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,

which required local chief law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun buyers until a national federal background check system took effect. But two county sheriffs, Jay Prince and Richard Mack challenged this law, arguing that Congress could not require state or local law enforcement officers to carry out federal regulatory duties. So the question here was similar to the question in the New York case, can the federal government require state and local officials to implement or administer federal regulatory programs, or does that violate the 10th Amendment? And the court said, no, Congress can't

compel state or local executive officials to administer federal regulatory programs because doing so violates the constitutional structure of federalism and the 10th Amendment. Now, those cases we just talked about focus mainly on regulating commerce and the anti-commandering doctrine. But there are also other cases that talk about when the federal government can encourage state action through conditional federal funding and when that encouragement blends into unconstitutional coercion and when Congress can regulate states directly. Rather than going into those cases one by one, this is what I'll say. The Supreme Court has said that Congress can encourage state action through conditional federal funding, but there is this coercion.

limit. So, for example, back in the 80s, Congress offered states highway funding on the condition that they raised the legal drinking age to 21. That was fine. States were free to refuse, and if they did, they would only lose a small portion of federal highway funds. But something Congress can't do is say that states have to, let's say, expand Medicaid coverage, otherwise they lose all of their existing Medicaid funding. And this was a case in 2012, because the, the financial threat was so big that states effectively had no real choice but to comply. The court said this was unconstitutionally coercive and violated the 10th Amendment. So let's wrap up the 10th Amendment. Okay, there's three takeaways. Number one, the federal

government can only act within the powers granted to it by the Constitution, which also includes implied powers. Number two, states get the powers that are not expressing. given to the federal government. And number three, the Supreme Court plays a very big role in shaping how the 10th Amendment works in practice by defining the scope of federal power and how far it can actually go. And with that, we've covered the Bill of Rights. In the next episode, we will move on to the specific principles within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that are very important that everyone talks about all the time, things like separation of church and state and due process. And then in the episode after that, we'll talk about the evolution of equal protection.

And then we'll move on to some other topics like the three branches of government, presidential elections, and much, much more. So thank you for attending today's class at Unbiased University and I will talk to you next time.