Law Commons^™

State Courts And The Interpretation Of Federal Statutes, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the debate over how federal courts should interpret federal statutes, "faithful agent" theories stand pitted against "dynamic" theories of statutory interpretation. The following questions lie at the heart of the debate: Is the proper role of federal courts to strive to implement the commands of the legislature-in other words, to act as Congress's faithful agents? Or, is the proper role of federal courts to act as partners with Congress in the forward-looking making of federal law-in other words, to interpret statutes dynamically? Proponents of faithful agent theories include both "textualists" and "purposivists." Textualists have argued that federal courts best …

Commandeering And Its Alternatives: A Federalism Perspective, Neil S. Siegel

Vanderbilt Law Review

This inquiry argues that current Tenth Amendment jurisprudence causes net harm to federalism values under certain circumstances. Specifically, New York v. United States and Printz v. United States protect state autonomy to some extent by requiring the federal government to internalize more of the costs of federal regulation before engaging in regulation. But anticommandeering doctrine harms state autonomy in situations where the presence of the rule triggers more preemption going forward. Preemption generally causes a greater compromise of federalism values than does commandeering by eroding state regulatory control.

While it is a context-sensitive empirical question whether specific applications of the …

Fatal In Theory And Strict In Fact: An Empirical Analysis Of Strict Scrutiny In The Federal Courts, Adam Winkler

Vanderbilt Law Review

A popular myth in American constitutional law is that the "strict scrutiny" standard of review applied to enforce rights such as free speech and equal protection is 'strict' in theory and fatal in fact."' This phrase, coined by the late legal scholar Gerald Gunther in 1972, has been called "one of the most famous epithets in American constitutional law"' and has effectively defined the strict scrutiny standard in the minds of lawyers for two generations. Born of Gunther's observation, supported by the iconic decisions of the Warren Court, and reinforced in constitutional law teaching and scholarship, the myth teaches that …

The Puzzle Of State Constitutions, Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In a series of groundbreaking articles published over the past fifteen years, James Gardner has led the charge to make state constitutionalism a part of the constitutional law discussion more generally. His new book, Interpreting State Constitutions: A Jurisprudence of Function in a Federal System, steps beyond his study of specific issues in state constitutionalism to lay out an ambitious theory about how state constitutions should be interpreted based on their function within a federal system. Gardner's book is a significant scholarly effort to take state constitutions seriously, in a way that transcends any one jurisdiction or constitutional provision. Gardner's …