Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Response To Wasserman And Rhodes: The Texas S.B. 8 Litigation And “Our Formalism”, B. Jessie Hill
Response To Wasserman And Rhodes: The Texas S.B. 8 Litigation And “Our Formalism”, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
In Solving the Procedural Puzzles of the Texas Heartbeat Act and Its Imitators: The Limits and Opportunities of Offensive Litigation, Professors Howard Wasserman and Rocky Rhodes explain why the U.S. Supreme Court correctly rejected the pre-enforcement legal challenge brought by abortion providers challenging Texas’s draconian abortion law, S.B. 8, which was specifically designed to evade such challenges. Wasserman and Rhodes also provide grounds for hope on the part of future similarly situated challengers to S.B. 8 copycat laws, outlining a route by which the clinics could have engaged in offensive federal-court litigation against “any person” plaintiffs who seek to …
Our Federalism On Drugs, Jonathan Adler
Our Federalism On Drugs, Jonathan Adler
Faculty Publications
Over the past decade, voters and legislatures have moved to legalize the possession of marijuana under state law. Some have limited these reforms to the medicinal use of marijuana, while others have not. Despite these reforms marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Although the Justice Department has not sought to preempt or displace state-level reforms, the federal prohibition casts a long shadow across state-level legalization efforts. This federal-state conflict presents multiple important and challenging policy questions that often get overlooked in policy debates over whether to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational purposes. Yet in a “compound republic” like the …
Cooperation, Commandeering, Or Crowding Out? : Federal Intervention And State Choices In Health Care Policy, Jonathan H. Adler
Cooperation, Commandeering, Or Crowding Out? : Federal Intervention And State Choices In Health Care Policy, Jonathan H. Adler
Faculty Publications
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) substantially alters the respective roles of the federal and state governments in health care policy. Beyond the individual mandate, the ACA presents many questions of federalism, both constitutional and policy-related. This paper, prepared for a symposium sponsored by the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, addresses some of these federalism issues. After outlining some of the policy considerations for determining the proper federal and state balance in health care policy, it identifies constitutional limitations on the federal government’s ability to direct or even influence state policy choices, before discussing how federal …
When Is Two A Crowd: The Impact Of Federal Action On State Environmental Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler
When Is Two A Crowd: The Impact Of Federal Action On State Environmental Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler
Faculty Publications
This article seeks to identify the ways in which federal actions can influence state regulatory choices in the context of environmental policy. The federal government may directly influence state policy choices by preempting state policies or by inducing state cooperation through the use of various incentives and penalties for state action. The federal government may indirectly, and perhaps unintentionally, influence state policy choices as well. Federal policies may encourage greater state regulation by reducing the costs of initiating regulatory action or by placing issues on state policy agendas. Federal regulation may also discourage or even "crowd-out" state-level regulatory action by …
Jurisdictional Mismatch In Environmental Federalism, Jonathan H. Adler
Jurisdictional Mismatch In Environmental Federalism, Jonathan H. Adler
Faculty Publications
Jurisdictional mismatch plagues contemporary environmental law and policy. The division of authority and responsibility for environmental protection between the federal and state governments lacks any cohesive rationale or justification. The federal government regulates in many areas where there is no clear analytical basis for federal involvement. At the same time, the federal government is relatively absent where a stronger federal presence could be justified. Conversely, states are precluded, discouraged or otherwise inhibited from adopting environmental protections where state efforts would be worthwhile. At the same time, state intervention seeps into areas where a dominant federal role would be more defensible. …
Looking Ahead To The 2005-06 Term (2005), Jonathan H. Adler
Looking Ahead To The 2005-06 Term (2005), Jonathan H. Adler
Faculty Publications
This essay surveys the upcoming 2005-06 term of the Supreme Court, a term that may be as notable for what it says about the future direction of the Supreme Court as it is for specific decisions in any particular cases. This does not mean the term lacks important cases. To the contrary, this coming year the Court will consider the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, address the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to religious use of drugs, and determine whether the federal government can effectively preempt Oregon's decision to legalize doctor-assisted suicide. It will revisit contemporary federalism and …
Is Morrison Dead? Assessing A Supreme Drug (Law) Overdose, Jonathan H. Adler
Is Morrison Dead? Assessing A Supreme Drug (Law) Overdose, Jonathan H. Adler
Faculty Publications
There was little doubt that the federal government would prevail in Gonzales v. Raich. What was, perhaps, unexpected was so expansive a repudiation of enforceable judicial limitations on federal power. In upholding the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act as applied to the non-commercial intrastate possession and consumption of marijuana for medical purposes as authorized under California law, the Supreme Court hollowed out the core of contemporary commerce clause jurisprudence. Insofar as United States v. Morrison had stood for the propositions that only intrastate economic activities could be aggregated for purposes of the "substantial effects" test, that attenuated connections between …
Judicial Federalism And The Future Of Federal Environmental Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler
Judicial Federalism And The Future Of Federal Environmental Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler
Faculty Publications
This article assesses the current and likely impact of the Supreme Court's federalism cases on federal environmental regulation. As a result of this assessment, the article seeks to make four points: (1) Thus far, the Supreme Court's federalism cases have had a limited impact on federal regulation, as federal courts have not used these cases as a basis for limiting the reach of federal regulatory authority. (2) Notwithstanding this limited impact, the underlying logic of the Supreme Court's cases does pose a challenge for federal regulation, particularly in the Commerce Clause context. (3) The thrust of the federalism cases makes …
Comment, The Green Aspects Of Printz: The Revival Of Federalism And Its Implications For Environmental Law, Jonathan H. Adler
Comment, The Green Aspects Of Printz: The Revival Of Federalism And Its Implications For Environmental Law, Jonathan H. Adler
Faculty Publications
This Comment reviews the Printz decision in the context of the Supreme Court's recent federalism jurisprudence and assesses its implications for environmental law. Part I provides a brief historical overview of the federal-state relationship in the environmental context and recent Supreme Court decisions on federalism. Part II discusses and evaluates the Printz decision. Part III applies the Supreme Court holdings in Printz and related federalism cases to current environmental policies and identifies federal environmental programs that are constitutionally suspect. Finally, Part IV addresses the public policy concern that limiting the federal government's power in the environmental context will inevitably weaken …
Commandeering, The Tenth Amendment, And The Federal Requisition Power: New York V. United States Revisited, Erik M. Jensen
Commandeering, The Tenth Amendment, And The Federal Requisition Power: New York V. United States Revisited, Erik M. Jensen
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court's recent Tenth Amendment decisions, New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, have relied on the original understanding to hold that the Congress may not compel state officials to enact or administer federal programs. We present evidence from the field of taxation that raises questions about the Court's originalist approach to the Tenth Amendment. We explain why the results in New York and Printz are superficially supported by the history of the widely discredited system of requisitions that prevailed under the Articles of Confederation: the Constitution created a system of indirect and direct taxation to …
Introduction To Symposium, The New Federalism After United States V. Lopez, Jonathan L. Entin
Introduction To Symposium, The New Federalism After United States V. Lopez, Jonathan L. Entin
Faculty Publications
Introduction to Symposium, The New Federalism After United States v. Lopez, Cleveland, Ohio, 1996.