Gregory v. Ashcroft

Status

65 later cases cite Gregory v. Ashcroft; 65 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Treatments

Limited

• The district court held that Gregory’s presumption against implied federal preemption in nonlabor cases did not govern preemption under federal labor law.

  Employers Association v. United Steelworkers of America · D. Minn. · filed October 5, 1992

  At the outset, the Court declines to follow the non-labor law cases which disfavor implied federal preemption of state laws. See Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, — U.S. —, —, 111 S.Ct. 2476, 2482, 115 L.Ed.2d 532 (1991); Gregory v. Ashcroft, — U.S. —, —, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2401, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991); Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2308, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). These cases are wholly inapposite .in the context of federal labor, law.

  Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

• The Sixth Circuit held that Gregory’s clear-statement rule does not apply to the National Voter Registration Act, which Congress enacted under the Elections Clause.

  Harkless v. Brunner · Sixth Circuit · filed October 28, 2008

  The plain-statement rule, 5 upon which the Secretary so heavily relies, does not help her. First, as we have explained, the NVRA and Ohio’s implementing statute are clear: the Secretary is responsible for managing the multiple state responsibilities under the NVRA. Second, the plain-statement rule does not apply to the NVRA. The Secretary is correct that when Congress attempts to abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it must make its intent to do so clear and unequivocal. See, e.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). Congress enacted the NVRA, however, under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, more commonly known as the Elections Clause. ... Accordingly, the logic behind the plain-statement rule — that Congress must be explicit when it encroaches in areas traditionally within a state’s core governmental functions — does not apply when Congress acts under the Elections Clause, as it did in enacting the NVRA.

  Read the full opinion on CourtListener →