16.2 Modern Interpretation and Application of the Contract Clause

The Contract Clause prohibits states from passing laws that impair contractual obligations. Modern interpretation involves a three-step analysis: determining substantial impairment, examining the state's public purpose, and assessing the reasonableness of the adjustment.

Courts distinguish between substantial and reasonable impairments, with only substantial ones requiring further scrutiny. The public purpose justification is crucial, with courts generally deferring to legislative judgment unless the state is a contracting party, which triggers heightened scrutiny.

Contract Clause Framework

Three-Step Analysis

Top images from around the web for Three-Step Analysis

• 

  Constitutions and Contracts: Amending or Changing the Contract | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Constitutions and Contracts: Amending or Changing the Contract | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Constitutions and Contracts: Amending or Changing the Contract | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Three-Step Analysis

• 

  Constitutions and Contracts: Amending or Changing the Contract | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Constitutions and Contracts: Amending or Changing the Contract | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Constitutions and Contracts: Amending or Changing the Contract | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• The Contract Clause, found in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts
• The current framework for analyzing Contract Clause claims involves a three-step analysis established by the Supreme Court in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light Co. (1983) and subsequent cases
• The first step determines whether the state law has substantially impaired a contractual relationship, considering factors such as the extent to which the law undermines the contractual bargain, interferes with a party's reasonable expectations, and prevents the party from safeguarding or reinstating his rights
• If a substantial impairment is found, the second step examines whether the state has a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation, such as remedying a broad and general social or economic problem
• The third step assesses whether the adjustment of the rights and responsibilities of the contracting parties is based upon reasonable conditions and is of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying the legislation's adoption

Substantial vs Reasonable Impairments

Distinguishing Substantial and Reasonable Impairments

• The determination of whether an impairment is substantial or reasonable is crucial in Contract Clause analysis, as only substantial impairments require further scrutiny
• Substantial impairments significantly alter the contractual relationship between parties, undermining the core of the contractual bargain and interfering with parties' reasonable expectations (e.g., drastically reducing pension benefits)
• Reasonable impairments do not fundamentally alter the nature of the contractual relationship and are justified by the state's legitimate interests in protecting public welfare (e.g., minor adjustments to contractual terms)
• Factors considered in determining the substantiality of an impairment include the extent to which the law undermines the contractual bargain, interferes with a party's reasonable expectations, and prevents the party from safeguarding or reinstating his rights

Supreme Court Guidance

• The Supreme Court has held that a state regulation that restricts a party to gains it reasonably expected from the contract does not necessarily constitute a substantial impairment (Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 1983)
• In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey (1977), the Supreme Court found that a state law repealing a covenant that limited the use of port authority revenues substantially impaired the contractual rights of bondholders
• In Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a Minnesota law imposing a pension funding charge on certain employers terminating their pension plans constituted a substantial impairment of contractual obligations

Public Purpose Justification

Significance of Public Purpose

• The public purpose justification plays a crucial role in determining the constitutionality of state laws that impair contractual obligations under the Contract Clause
• Once a substantial impairment is found, the state must demonstrate a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation, such as remedying a broad and general social or economic problem
• The public purpose must be more than a mere convenience and should be aimed at promoting the general welfare of the community (e.g., addressing a fiscal emergency or protecting vulnerable populations)

Level of Scrutiny

• Courts generally defer to legislative judgment in determining the necessity and reasonableness of a particular measure, unless the state itself is a contracting party
• When the state is a party to the contract, courts apply a more stringent level of scrutiny, requiring that the impairment be reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose
• In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey (1977), the Supreme Court applied heightened scrutiny to a state law impairing a contract to which the state was a party, finding that the impairment was neither necessary nor reasonable

Contract Clause Applications

Public Pension Reform

• In the context of public pension reform, courts have grappled with the application of the Contract Clause to state laws that modify or reduce public employees' pension benefits
• Some courts have found that such laws constitute substantial impairments of contractual rights, requiring a heightened level of scrutiny and a demonstration of a significant and legitimate public purpose (e.g., addressing a fiscal emergency)
• In Moro v. State (2015), the Oregon Supreme Court held that a state law reducing cost-of-living adjustments for public employee pensions substantially impaired contractual rights and was not justified by a sufficient public purpose

Municipal Bankruptcy and Bondholder Rights

• The Contract Clause has also been invoked in cases involving state laws that alter the rights of bondholders, such as municipal bankruptcy laws or laws that modify the priority of claims
• In In re City of Detroit (2014), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the city's bankruptcy plan, which impaired the rights of bondholders, did not violate the Contract Clause due to the significant public purpose of addressing the city's financial crisis

Regulated Industries

• In the realm of regulated industries, the Contract Clause may be implicated when state laws modify the terms of existing contracts between regulated entities and their customers or suppliers
• In Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light Co. (1983), the Supreme Court found that a Kansas law limiting the ability of natural gas suppliers to pass on price increases to consumers did not violate the Contract Clause, as the impairment was not substantial and was justified by the public purpose of protecting consumers from excessive prices