Law Commons^™

Federalizing Medicaid, Nicole Huberfeld

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article is one of only a small number of proposals over the past forty-six years for federalizing Medicaid. None of these proposals has grappled directly with the reasons that Medicaid does not satisfy federalism goals, and thus a key reason for modernizing Medicaid’s structure has been ignored. Despite being an area of “traditional state concern,” healthcare should no longer be left to the economic and political whims of the states, as Medicaid is not an effective Brandeisian “laboratory of the states.” Admittedly, some would oppose centralization on the ideological grounds that more federal government power is bad, and more …

Federalizing Medicaid, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Medicaid fosters constant tension between the federal government and the states, and that friction has been exacerbated by its expansion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). Medicaid was an under-theorized and underfunded continuation of existing programs that retained two key aspects of welfare medicine as it developed: bias toward limiting government assistance to the “deserving poor,” and delivery of care through the states that resulted in a strong sense of states’ rights. These ideas regarding the deserving poor and federalism have remained constants in the program over the last forty-six years, but PPACA changes one …

Should Federalism Shield Corruption?—Mail Fraud, State Law And Post-Lopez Analysis, George D. Brown

George D. Brown

In this Article, Professor Brown examines the issues that federal prosecutions of state and local officials pose. The analysis focuses on prosecutions under the mail fraud statute and considers the general debate over the proper scope of federal criminal law. Professor Brodin addresses the question of whether a re-examination of mail fraud would focus on constitutional or statutory issues and by utilizing the Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez examines the question of internal limits on the mail fraud statute.

The Ideologies Of Forum Shopping - Why Doesn't A Conservative Court Protect Defendants?, George D. Brown

George D. Brown

In this Article, Professor George Brown identifies a seeming inconsistency in the Supreme Court’s treatment of federal-state private law forum shopping and state-state private law forum shopping. Professor Brown notes that the Court has been explicit in its condemnation of federal-state forum shopping, but apparently accepts, and even encourages, state-state private law forum shopping. This is strange behavior from a conservative Court, since forum shopping threatens traditional conservative values such as the desire to curtail the proliferation of lawsuits and a general pro-defendant stance. Furthermore, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins clearly rejected forum shopping. Professor Brown reconciles these seemingly contrary …

Globalization And Structure, Julian Ku, John Yoo

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Laws For Learning In An Age Of Acceleration, John O. Mcginnis

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federalism Under Obama, Gillian E. Metzger

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Benefits Of Opt-In Federalism, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) is a controversial and historic statute that mandates people make insurance bargains. Unacknowledged is an innovative mechanism ACA uses to select the law that governs those bargains: opt-in federalism.

Opt-in federalism – in which individuals choose between federal and state rules – is a promising theoretical means to make and choose law. This Article explains why, and concludes that the appeal of opt-in federalism is independent of ACA. Whatever the statute’s constitutional fate, future policymakers should consider opt-in federalist approaches to answer fundamental but exceedingly difficult questions of health and retirement law.

Immigrant Laws, Obstacle Preemption And The Lost Legacy Of Mcculloch, Lauren Gilbert

Lauren Gilbert

Using Congress’ perceived failure to enforce the immigration laws as a backdrop, this paper will explore how the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chamber of Commerce v.Whiting upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act exposes some of the tensions and contradictions in modern preemption doctrine. Examining the relationship among express, field, impossibility and obstacle preemption, I explore three emerging trends, all evident in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. The first is an increasing reluctance of the Court to find implied obstacle preemption. The second related trend is an inclination to expand the scope of impossibility preemption beyond the physical impossibility cases. …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Counting Heads: Does The Existence Of A National Consensus Give Rise To A Substantive-Due-Process Right To A Particular Criminal Procedure?, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Anomalousness in a state’s criminal procedure(s), standing alone, is sufficient (to constitute a violation of substantive due process and that the substantive process due to a criminal defendant in a state with an anomalous criminal procedure is the process that would be provided to a similarly situated defendant in a mainstream jurisdiction. This does not mean that the fact that a majority of jurisdictions fails to afford a particular beneficial procedure to a criminal defendant means that such procedure is not guaranteed by due process. Nor is the recognition of a right by a majority of jurisdictions dispositive of whether …

Delegating Supremacy?, David S. Rubenstein

David S Rubenstein

The Court has held that federal agencies may preempt state law in much the same way as Congress. While the Supremacy Clause clearly empowers Congress to displace state law, administrative preemption rests on the undertheorized assumption that Congress may “delegate supremacy” to agencies. This Article challenges the constitutionality of that premise and imagines an unfolding system where agencies are stripped of the power to create supreme federal law. My proposal will no doubt be controversial because of the significant implications it holds for federalism and the operation of modern government. Some of the more serious implications include the substantive displacement …

The Myth Of Church-State Separation, David E. Steinberg

David E. Steinberg

The Myth Of Church-State Separation

by David E. Steinberg

Abstract

This article asserts that the church-state separation interpretation of Establishment Clause history is simply wrong. When they enacted the First Amendment, the framers were focused on the first five words of the amendment, which read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” The Establishment Clause guaranteed that the federal government would not interfere in state regulation of religion – whatever form that state regulation took. Rather than enacting the Establishment Clause to mandate a separation of church …

Conditional Spending, Coercion, And Commandeering: The Affordable Care Act And The Federal Regulation Of State Taxation, Bradley W. Joondeph

Bradley W. Joondeph

In their constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act (or ACA), the twenty-six states party to Florida v. HHS contend that the ACA’s amendments to Medicaid amount to an impermissible “commandeering” of the states. Specifically, they argue that, though the ACA’s Medicaid provisions are not mandatory in form, they are “in fact”; the sheer volume of the federal funding at stake leaves them with no practical capacity to withdraw from Medicaid. The states’ claim thus poses a very basic question of constitutional law, which the Supreme Court has yet to squarely answer: can conditions imposed on state governments pursuant to …

Why Should States Pay For Prisons, When Local Officials Decide Who Goes There?, W. David Ball

Faculty Publications

In the United States, states typically pay for prisons, even though the decisions that lead to prison admissions — arresting, charging, and sentencing — are made by local officials. The practice of state subsidies is relatively recent: there were no state prisons in the early part of the country’s history, and even as state institutions began to be developed, they largely supported themselves financially, rendering the notion of subsidies moot. Given the political economy of local decision-making, local preferences are unlikely to result in optimally-sized state prison populations. This Article suggests that since state prison subsidies may not be desirable …

Supreme Court Section 1983 Developments: October 1998 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Jurisprudence Of A Fledgling Federation: A Critical Analysis Of Pakistan’S Judicial View On Federalism, Umer Akram Chaudhry

Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers

Although the impediments in development of federation in Pakistan can be explored from different facets, this paper aims to critically analyze the constitutional history and judicial interpretation of federalism in Pakistan against the scholarly and conceptual debates over the idea. The paper argues that Pakistan’s judiciary, despite recognizing federalism as cornerstone of the Constitution, has not upheld the principle as strongly as other salient features of the Constitution. The superior judiciary has strengthened the official discourse of a unitary national identity leaving little room for ethnical pluralism and participatory nationalism. The paper shall also review measures introduced by the recent …

The Economics Of Horizontal Government Cooperation (Working Paper), Matthew R. Dalsanto Ph.D.

Matthew R. DalSanto, Ph.D.

This paper analyzes the ability of intrastate and interstate cooperative agreements to either minimize or capitalize on interjurisdictional externalities. These agreements are commonly referred to as compacts or joint powers agreements (intrastate compacts). The compact mechanism allows regional governments to enter into contractual agreements with one another to coordinate policy choices and to engage in cooperative endeavors. Given the inter-jurisdictional nature of the issues that affect horizontally situated governments, this mechanism is a powerful tool to achieve welfare-enhancing outcomes for citizens.

A review of the legal case law surrounding compacts is conducted to analyze the legal properties from an economic …

Water Pollution And Regulatory Cooperation In China, Hong Lan, Michael A. Livermore, Craig A. Wenner

Cornell International Law Journal

Government authority in China, while constitutionally organized as a unitary sovereign, is, in practice, a complex system of informal and formal divisions of authority between national, provincial, and local political actors. In the context of water pollution control, an issue of considerable interest in China, both central and subnational authorities have key roles. The incentives faced by some officials, however, are ill-aligned with environmental protection, predictably leading to inefficiently high levels of pollution. Recent changes in China's water pollution regime have the potential to create a more successful cooperative arrangement between the national and subnational governments. These reforms impose stronger …

Foreword: Divine Operating System?, Glenn Harlan Reynolds

UTK Law Faculty Publications

This Foreword to a Tennessee Law Review symposium on the implications of a federal constitutional convention surveys a number of proposals for reining in the growth of federal government power and spending, ranging from the creation of a new house of Congress with the sole power to repeal bills, to more mundane proposals such as a balanced budget amendment and term limits.

Urbanization, Water Quality, And The Regulated Landscape, Dave Owen

Publications

Watershed scientists frequently describe urbanization as a primary cause of water quality degradation, and recent studies conclude that even in lightly-developed watersheds, urbanization often precludes attainment of water quality standards. This article considers legal responses to this pervasive problem. It explains why traditional legal measures have been ineffective, and it evaluates several recent innovations piloted in the northeastern United States and potentially applicable across the nation. Specifically, the innovations involve using impervious cover TMDLs, residual designation authority, and collective permitting. More generally, the innovations involve transferring regulatory focus from end-of-the-pipe to landscape-based controls. I conclude that the innovations, while raising …

Assessing The State Of The State Constitutionalism, Jim Rossi

Michigan Law Review

Robert Williams's The Law of American State Constitutions is an impressive career accomplishment for one of the leading academic lawyers writing on state constitutions. Given the need for a comprehensive, treatise-like treatment of state constitutions that transcends individual jurisdictions, Williams's book will almost certainly become the go-to treatise for the next generation of state constitutional law practitioners and scholars. The U.S. Constitution has a grip on how the American legal mind approaches issues in American constitutionalism, but an important recurring theme in Williams's work (as well as that of others) is how state constitutions present unique interpretive challenges. More than …

The Bp Oil Spill: Marine Pollution, Admiralty Law And State Police Power Under The Oil Pollution Act Of 1990o, John J. Costonis

John J. Costonis

ABSTRACT

Choice of law issues in marine pollution events engage federal admiralty/general maritime law, federal environmental legislation and the reserved powers of the states to protect their natural resources and economic welfare. Admiralty and general maritime law enjoyed center stage throughout the first two thirds of the last century. Federal marine pollution statutes were few and weak, and state initiatives were typically deemed preempted in all but the so-called “marine but local” cases. The equilibrium began to shift in favor of state police powers and federal environmental values in the mid-1960’s in consequence of the Supreme Court’s solicitude for the …