## Facts

- Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), prohibiting unjustified age-based discrimination against employees ages 40 to 70, subject to statutory exceptions such as bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) and reasonable factors other than age.
- In 1974, Congress amended the ADEA to include state and local governments within the Act’s definition of “employer.”
- A supervisor in the Wyoming Game and Fish Department was involuntarily retired at age 55 under a Wyoming statute mandating retirement at that age for certain game wardens and law-enforcement personnel.
- The employee filed an age-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC brought a federal enforcement action against the State of Wyoming and state officials seeking relief for the employee and similarly situated persons.
- Wyoming argued that applying the ADEA to state law-enforcement employment decisions exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause because of Tenth Amendment limits recognized in National League of Cities v. Usery.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress’s extension of the ADEA to state and local governments is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause.
2. Whether the Tenth Amendment bars application of the ADEA to a state’s mandatory retirement policy for law-enforcement personnel as an interference with traditional governmental functions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that the ADEA’s extension to state and local governments is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power, both on its face and as applied to Wyoming’s policy.
- The Court held that the ADEA was not barred by Tenth Amendment constraints because it did not directly impair Wyoming’s ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the holding that the ADEA could be enforced against Wyoming.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may regulate state and local governmental employers under the Commerce Clause when the regulation is within commerce power and does not violate external limits imposed by the Tenth Amendment.
- Under the Hodel framework, a Tenth Amendment challenge to Commerce Clause legislation succeeds only if: (1) the law regulates the States as States; (2) it concerns attributes of state sovereignty; and (3) state compliance would directly impair the States’ ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions.
- Even when a federal employment statute regulates the States as States, it is constitutional if it leaves room for state operational choices and does not impose a degree of intrusion that directly impairs core governmental operations.
- The ADEA’s prohibitions are limited by statutory exceptions (including BFOQ and reasonable factors other than age), which permit justified age-based employment decisions while barring unjustified discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Congress’s decision to apply the ADEA to state and local governments, concluding that enforcing the Act against Wyoming’s mandatory retirement policy for game wardens fell within Commerce Clause authority and did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it did not directly impair the State’s ability to manage essential governmental operations.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983)