3.4 Intergovernmental Immunities

Intergovernmental immunities shape the balance between federal and state powers. This doctrine limits how governments can tax and regulate each other, protecting their ability to function independently while allowing some overlap.

The Supreme Court has refined this concept over time. Early rulings gave broad immunity, but later decisions narrowed it. Now, the focus is on whether taxes or regulations unfairly target or hinder essential government operations.

Intergovernmental Immunities Doctrine

Definition and Constitutional Basis

Top images from around the web for Definition and Constitutional Basis

• 

  Federalism: How should power be structurally divided? | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

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

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: How should power be structurally divided? | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Definition and Constitutional Basis

• 

  Federalism: How should power be structurally divided? | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

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

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: How should power be structurally divided? | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• The doctrine of intergovernmental immunities is a constitutional principle that limits the ability of the federal government and state governments to interfere with or regulate each other's governmental functions
• Rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which establishes federal law as the "supreme law of the land"
• Intergovernmental immunity is reciprocal in nature
  • Protects the federal government from state interference
  • Protects states from federal interference in their respective governmental functions
• Applies to both taxation and regulation, preventing one level of government from imposing taxes or regulatory burdens on the other in a way that could impede essential government operations (taxation of government employees' salaries)

Scope and Application

• The doctrine has evolved over time, with the Supreme Court initially interpreting it broadly but later narrowing its scope
• Early cases established a broad interpretation of federal immunity from state interference and extended reciprocal immunity to states (McCulloch v. Maryland, Collector v. Day)
• In the early 20th century, the Court began to limit the application of intergovernmental immunities, allowing for more federal regulation and taxation of state activities (South Carolina v. United States, Helvering v. Gerhardt)
• The Court's approach shifted towards a functional analysis, focusing on whether a particular tax or regulation would unduly interfere with essential government functions

Historical Development of Intergovernmental Immunities

Early Interpretation and Landmark Cases

• The concept of intergovernmental immunities originated in the early years of the United States as the Supreme Court grappled with defining the proper balance of power between the federal government and the states
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not tax or regulate federal instrumentalities, establishing a broad interpretation of federal immunity from state interference
• Collector v. Day (1871): The doctrine was extended to provide reciprocal immunity for states from federal interference, holding that the federal government could not tax the salaries of state officials

Narrowing the Scope of Intergovernmental Immunities

• Over time, the Supreme Court began to narrow the scope of intergovernmental immunities, recognizing the need for a more flexible approach to allow for necessary regulation and taxation between the federal government and the states
• South Carolina v. United States (1905): The Court began to limit the application of intergovernmental immunities, allowing for more federal regulation and taxation of state activities (state-run liquor sales)
• Helvering v. Gerhardt (1938): The Court further limited state immunity, permitting the federal government to tax the salaries of state employees working for state-operated utilities, as the tax did not unduly interfere with essential state functions
• The Court's approach shifted towards a functional analysis, assessing whether a particular tax or regulation would unduly interfere with essential government functions

Limitations on Federal and State Power

Federal Immunity from State Interference

• States cannot directly tax or regulate federal instrumentalities
  • Federal agencies
  • Federal property
  • Federal employees acting within the scope of their official duties
• States may not discriminate against the federal government or those with whom it deals (federal contractors)

State Immunity from Federal Interference

• The federal government cannot tax or regulate essential state governmental functions in a way that would unduly interfere with states' ability to operate
• However, the federal government may impose generally applicable, non-discriminatory taxes and regulations on states, as long as they do not target essential state functions (taxation of state-run utilities)

Balancing Intergovernmental Taxation and Regulation

• The Supreme Court has recognized that some degree of intergovernmental taxation and regulation is permissible and necessary for the effective operation of the federal system
• The Court applies a functional approach, assessing whether a particular tax or regulation would unduly interfere with essential government functions or discriminate against the other level of government
• The doctrine seeks to maintain a balance between the need for federal and state governments to operate independently and the necessity of allowing some level of mutual taxation and regulation

Key Supreme Court Cases on Intergovernmental Immunities

Establishing Broad Intergovernmental Immunity

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established broad federal immunity from state taxation and regulation, holding that states could not tax the Second Bank of the United States, a federal instrumentality
• Collector v. Day (1871): Extended intergovernmental immunity to states, holding that the federal government could not tax the salaries of state officials

Narrowing the Scope of State Immunity

• South Carolina v. United States (1905): Began to limit the scope of state immunity, allowing the federal government to tax state-run liquor sales, as this was not considered an essential state function
• Helvering v. Gerhardt (1938): Further narrowed state immunity, permitting the federal government to tax the salaries of state employees working for state-operated utilities, as the tax did not unduly interfere with essential state functions

Permitting Generally Applicable Taxes and Regulations

• New York v. United States (1946): Upheld federal taxation of state sale of mineral waters, emphasizing that states are not immune from generally applicable, non-discriminatory federal taxes
• North Dakota v. United States (1990): Held that states may impose generally applicable, non-discriminatory taxes and regulations on federal contractors, as long as they do not discriminate against the federal government or unduly interfere with federal functions