United States v. Sage

906 F. Supp. 84, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15798, 1995 WL 627950
CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedOctober 3, 1995
Docket3:95cr108 (DJS)
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 906 F. Supp. 84 (United States v. Sage) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Sage, 906 F. Supp. 84, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15798, 1995 WL 627950 (D. Conn. 1995).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SQUATRITO, District Judge.

This matter is now before the court on Defendant Samuel D. Sage’s (“Sage”) August 14, 1995 motion to dismiss the information filed against him for an alleged violation of the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992. (“CSRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 228. The Defendant claims three bases for dismissal: (1) the CSRA is an unconstitutional exercise of the commerce power under Article I § 8, U.S. Constitution; (2) the CSRA violates the Tenth Amendment and offends principles of federalism and comity; and (3) the CSRA is void for vagueness.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 13, 1995 the government filed a one-count information charging the Defendant with willful failure to pay child support as previously ordered by the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. The information states that “[f]rom on or about September 23, 1991, through the date of this information, in the District of Connecticut and elsewhere, the defendant, SAMUEL D. SAGE, who resides in a different state, willfully and unlawfully failed to pay legal child support obligations as ordered by the Superior Court for the State of Connecticut, for his two minor children ... which amount is in excess of $5,000,00.” This district issued a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest, which was effected in Ohio.

For the reasons stated below, Sage’s motion to dismiss is denied.

II. DISCUSSION

A. PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY

In determining the validity of a statute, the court must presume constitutionality. See Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 468 U.S. 1323, 105 S.Ct. 11, 82 L.Ed.2d 908 (1984); see also United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32, 83 S.Ct. 594, 597, 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963). In areas of social and economic policy, it is not for the courts to judge the propriety of the Legislature’s decisions.

“The Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted.”

FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, -, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 2101, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993) (quoting Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97, 99 S.Ct. 939, 943, 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979)). This principle applies even if such decisions may broaden the federal government’s role. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 2418, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992). “That Congress’ predictive judgments are entitled to substantial deference does not mean, however, that they are insulated from meaningful judicial review altogether.” Turner Broadcasting Sys. v. FCC, — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 2471, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994).

B. THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

The Defendant relies on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, United States v. Lopez, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), for his contention that the CSRA 1 is unconstitutional.

*88 In Lopez the Defendant possessed a handgun on the grounds of a Texas high school. Following his arrest, the Defendant was charged with and convicted of violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibits the possession of a firearm “at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). On appeal the Defendant challenged his conviction on the grounds that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting the statute. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction. United States v. Lopez, 2 F.3d 1342 (5th Cir.1993). The Supreme Court affirmed.

Much of the Lopez opinion is devoted to a review of the history of the Commerce Clause and its operation as a restraint on legislative authority. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-recognized proposition that

The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118, 61 S.Ct. 451, 459, 85 L.Ed. 609 (1941). The Court, however, also echoed the warning that

the scope of the interstate commerce power “must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.”

Lopez, — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 1628-29 (quoting NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37, 57 S.Ct. 615, 624, 81 L.Ed. 893 (1937)). Given the important interests at stake in the outcome of the analysis of any given reach of congressional authority, the Court noted its traditional duty to “undertake[ ] to decide whether a rational basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce.” Lopez, — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 1629 (citing cases).

The Court also affirmed the existence of three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause: (1) the use of the channels of interstate commerce; (2) “the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities”; and (3) activities which have “a substantial relation to interstate commerce, 1.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Id. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 1629-30 (citations omitted).

Turning to the statute at issue the Court found that Congress’ power to enact 922(q) had to be found under Category Three. Id. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 1629.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Doe v. Hartz
970 F. Supp. 1375 (N.D. Iowa, 1997)
United States v. Ricky L. Hampshire
95 F.3d 999 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Hampshire
Tenth Circuit, 1996
United States v. Lewis
936 F. Supp. 1093 (D. Rhode Island, 1996)
Murphy v. United States
934 F. Supp. 736 (W.D. Virginia, 1996)
United States v. Ganaposki
930 F. Supp. 1076 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1996)
Doe v. Doe
929 F. Supp. 608 (D. Connecticut, 1996)
United States v. Nichols
928 F. Supp. 302 (S.D. New York, 1996)
United States v. Collins
921 F. Supp. 1028 (W.D. New York, 1996)
United States v. Johnson
940 F. Supp. 911 (E.D. Virginia, 1996)
United States v. Sims
936 F. Supp. 817 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1996)
United States v. Kegel
916 F. Supp. 1233 (M.D. Florida, 1996)
United States v. Cardoza
914 F. Supp. 683 (D. Massachusetts, 1996)
United States v. Parker
911 F. Supp. 830 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
906 F. Supp. 84, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15798, 1995 WL 627950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sage-ctd-1995.