Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Pierce County v. Guillen

Docket No.: 01-1229
Certiorari Granted: Apr 29 2002
Argued: November 4, 2002
Decided: January 14, 2003

Topics:

23 U.S.C. 409, Economic Activity, Judicial Power, Article I, Commerce Clause, Double Jeopardy, Necessary and Proper, Tenth Amendment, murder, privacy, separation of powers

PartyNames: Pierce County, Washington v. Ignacio Guillen, Legal Guardian of Jennifer Guillen and Alma
Petitioner: Pierce County, Washington
Respondent: Ignacio Guillen, Legal Guardian of Jennifer Guillen and Alma

Court Below: Supreme Court of Washington
Citation: Washington Supreme Court, 31 P.3d 628. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether 23 U.S.C. ยง409, which pr otects certain documents "compiled orcollected" in connection with certain f ederal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in federal or state trials, is a valid exercise of Congress'power under the Supremacy, Spending , Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses of the United States Constitution. 2. Whether private plaintiffs have standing to assert "states' rights" under the Tenth Amendment where their State's Legisl ative and Executive branches expresslyapprove and accept the benefits and terms of the federal statute in question.
Supreme Court Docket

Pierce County, Washington
v.
Ignacio Guillen, Legal Guardian of Jennifer Guillen and Alma
537 U.S. 129 (2003)
Question:

Does the Hazard Elimination Program exceed Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause?

Pierce County v. Guillen
ORAL ARGUMENT

November 4, 2002

Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Pierce County, 0 vote(s) against

Pierce County v. Guillen
Case Documents

1Opinion in Pierce County v. Guillen
2Opinion in Pierce County v. Guillen
Additional documents for this case are pending review.