National League of Cities v. Usery

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Constitutional Law

426 U.S. 833 (1976)

Overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseTenth AmendmentFederalismstate sovereigntyFair Labor Standards Acttraditional governmental functionsintegral governmental functions

Facts

The Fair Labor Standards Act originally excluded States and their political subdivisions from its coverage, but Congress gradually expanded the Act and in 1974 removed the exemption almost entirely. The 1974 amendments extended federal minimum wage and maximum hour requirements to almost all state and local employees by defining public agencies as employers and their activities as enterprises engaged in commerce. The appellants, including several States and cities, alleged that applying these provisions to public employment would substantially increase costs and disrupt the way they provided services such as police, fire protection, sanitation, public health, and parks and recreation. They argued not that Congress lacked commerce power over similar private employment, but that direct regulation of the States as States violated constitutional limits protecting state sovereignty.

Issue

Whether Congress, acting under the Commerce Clause, may apply the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and maximum hour provisions directly to the States and their political subdivisions as employers. More specifically, the question was whether those provisions unconstitutionally interfere with the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.

Rule

Although Congress has broad power under the Commerce Clause, it may not exercise that power in a way that directly displaces the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions. When federal regulation of the States as States impairs their ability to function effectively in the federal system by dictating fundamental employment decisions in such areas, the regulation is beyond Congress's authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts a statute under the Commerce Clause requiring all state-run fire departments to pay firefighters cash overtime at one-and-one-half times the regular rate after a federally defined work period. The law bars use of compensatory time unless it is taken in the same pay period. The State of Oregon challenges the law.

Under the majority's rule, is the statute constitutional as applied to Oregon's fire departments?

Explanation. The majority held that Congress may not, under the Commerce Clause, directly displace the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions. Fire protection is one of the listed examples of such functions, and federal overtime rules requiring cash payments would substantially interfere with state choices about staffing and work periods. Particularized proof of exact fiscal impact is not essential where the federal law significantly alters state control.