Constitutional Law
From our private database of 12,700+ case briefs...
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
United States Supreme Court
469 U.S. 528 (1985)
Facts
Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, but ruled in National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), that the FLSA did not grant authority to Congress to regulate the wages, overtime pay, and hours of state government employees. The San Antonio Metro Transit Authority (SAMTA) (defendant) had previously paid its state employees according to the federal standards established in the FLSA, but ceased doing so after the Supreme Court’s decision in National League of Cities. In 1979, the Wage and Hour Administration of the United States Department of Labor ruled that SAMTA could be regulated by the FLSA because its actions were not a “traditional government function” reserved for the states under National League of Cities. SAMTA then filed suit against the United States Department of Labor in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment that its actions were not subject to congressional regulation. Garcia (plaintiff) and other employees of SAMTA also filed suit at the same time against SAMTA claiming overtime back-pay. The district court allowed Garcia to intervene as a defendant in SAMTA’s suit against the United States Department of Labor. The district court ruled for SAMTA. Garcia and the Department of Labor appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court remanded the case, and the district court again ruled for SAMTA. On appeal the second time, the United States Supreme Court considered the case.
Rule of Law
The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.
Issue
The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
The holding and reasoning section includes:
- A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
- A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
- The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).
To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.
Dissent (Powell, J.)
The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.
Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)
The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 121,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 12,700 briefs, keyed to 172 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.