Law Commons^™

States’ Evolving Role In The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, David A. Super

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

States have always been crucial to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps). Even though the federal government has paid virtually all the program’s benefit costs, state administration has always been indispensable for several reasons. State and local governments pay their staff considerably less than the federal government, making state administration less expensive. States already administer other important antipoverty programs, notably family cash assistance and Medicaid, allowing them to coordinate the programs and minimize repetitive activities. And states have somewhat lower, and less polarizing, political footprints than does the federal government, moderating criticism of the program. In addition, …

Conclusion: A Way Forward, Peter B. Edelman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Where do we go next? I have three suggestions. One is to enlarge the frame of our work on poverty and race, including a focus on the ever-widening chasm of inequality, and all of it pressing toward the center stage of national attention. A second is to consolidate our work about income, jobs, and cash assistance into a unified frame, which I call a three-legged stool. And the third is to think from a perspective of place, and what that tells us about our antipoverty work.

We need a banner, a message, a theme, a politics for ending poverty. The …

Federalism Hedging, Entrenchment, And The Climate Challenge, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The virtues and effects of federalism continue to generate political, judicial and scholarly ferment. While some federalism partisans champion exclusivity and separation, others praise the more common political choice to retain federal and state regulatory overlap and interaction. Much of this work, however, focuses on government learning or rule clarity, giving little or no attention to how different federalism choices can heighten or hedge risks of regulatory failure and policy reversal. These debates play out with unusual fervor and with high stakes in battles over climate change regulation. Despite broad agreement that any effective climate policy intervention must include national …

Agency Enforcement Of Spending Clause Statutes: A Defense Of The Funding Cut-Off, Eloise Pasachoff

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article contends that federal agencies ought more frequently to use the threat of cutting off funds to state and local grantees that are not adequately complying with the terms of a grant statute. Scholars tend to offer four arguments to explain—and often to justify—agencies’ longstanding reluctance to engage in funding cut-offs: first, that funding cut-offs will hurt the grant program’s beneficiaries and so will undermine the agency’s ultimate goals; second, that federalism concerns counsel against federal agencies’ taking funds away from state and local grantees; third, that agencies are neither designed nor motivated to pursue funding cut-offs; and fourth, …

Getting Spending: How To Replace Clear Statement Rules With Clear Thinking About Conditional Grants Of Federal Funds, Brian Galle

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

How much federalism is too much? The answer, of course, depends on whom you ask. It is no surprise, then, that in both judicial and academic debates about the proper balance between national and local power, the fiercest arguments have been fought not over "how much?" (perhaps an impossible question in any event) but "who?" Thus, for each key aspect of national power-for example, the scope of the Commerce and Treaty powers, the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Congress's ability to subject states to suits for damages by private individuals -- there is an accompanying literature considering who best to …