Constitutional Law Commons^™

State Legislatures: Guardians Of The Federal Balance, Practical Strategies For Monitoring, Strengthening, And Sustaining American Federalism (Remarks), Christian G. Fritz

Faculty Scholarship

My remarks today are drawn from my book, Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State Legislative Resistance, and from an essay I wrote this year for the Center for the Study of Federalism about the responsibility of state legislators to sound the alarm when the federal government overreaches its constitutional authority.

The Supreme Court And The Constitution, Tom Rozinski

Open Touro Created

2026

The Supreme Court and the Constitution is a casebook for undergraduate students who want to earn about the Constitutional structure of the US government. Since the Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution, the book begins with a history of the Court before examining the processes and methods it uses to decide cases. There is also a unit on the development of judicial review and the limitations on the scope of the Court’s actions. One major unit examines the powers of the president in both foreign and domestic affairs, and includes a section on presidential immunities. Another major …

Escaping Quarantine: Marine Hospitals, The Constitution Act, 1867 And Canada’S First Federal Health Care Program, Dan Dwyre

Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies

Previous scholarship has argued that the enumeration of marine hospitals as a federal head of power in the Constitution Act, 1867 reflected a national concern over immigration and quarantine. This article disputes that. Using primary sources, this paper demonstrates that Canadian marine hospitals were established in port communities to provide for the general health of itinerant merchant sailors, who would otherwise be a burden on local hospitals and charitable organizations. The article concludes that marine hospitals can be viewed in retrospect as one of Canada’s first federal health care programs.

The Supreme Court, Regime Politics, And Federalism: From The New Deal To The Trump Era, J. Mitchell Pickerill, Lilly A. Pickerill

Northern Illinois University Law Review

In the 1990s, the conservative majority on the Rehnquist Court championed state sovereignty and autonomy in a series of cases some commentators dubbed a “federalism revolution.” The Supreme Court crafted constitutional doctrines under the Commerce Clause, Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, and Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment that limited federal powers while protecting or bolstering state powers. The Court’s doctrines in those cases diverged from its approach to constitutional federalism since the New Deal in the 1930s, but it tracked with the conservative Republican political agenda promoting a “new federalism” going back to Presidents Nixon and Reagan. However, as the …

50 Years Of Constitutional Judicial Review In The United Arab Emirates: Key Features, Nisrine Abiad

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

On the 50th anniversary of the enshrinement of judicial review within the UAE Constitution, this paper explores its main features. The analysis of the constitutional provisions and the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court reveals that constitutional judicial review in the UAE is intrinsically rooted in federalism as it is mainly designed as a tool preserving the adjudication of powers between federal and local authorities. It is nevertheless also destined by the Constitution for a wider purpose of constitutional justice endorsing the individuals and the courts as key players in its process.

The Great Depression And Canada's Major Originalist Decade, Preston Jordan Lim

Faculty Publications

Few periods of Canadian history have been as momentous or terrible as the Great Depression. The Dominion and provincial governments’ inability to combat financial and environmental catastrophe led many Canadians to openly question the appropriateness of their constitutional framework. As legal historians have since documented, many leading jurists of the time believed that a strong central government could, through the institution of national programs, contain the Great Depression; in the eyes of these 1930s jurists, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—then Canada’s apex court—had sapped the federal government of its powers by misinterpreting the British North America Act, 1867 …

Correcting Confusion Over Commandeering, Supremacy, And Preemption: A User’S Guide To Modern Federalism, Vikram David Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

Current disputes between state/local entities and the Trump administration, some of which build on flare-ups over the past few decades, place in sharp relief the key doctrinal features of modern federalism, many of which seem to confound the Supreme and lower courts, to say nothing of political actors and legal analysts. The mistakes being made run in both directions; sometimes states are wrongly confined, and in other episodes states are given (or are seeking) more than they are constitutionally due. In this Essay, I use several case studies—some from recent weeks or months and others from recent years or decades—to …

The Territorial Continuum: American Samoa, Criminal Adjudication, And Territorial Administration, Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud

Faculty Scholarship

The standard account of American territorial expansion posits that territorial acquisition moved along a spectrum of sovereignty. The federal government acquired new inhabited land through conquest or purchase, and the Constitution tasked Congress with organizing and administering the new territories until they were ready to become states. That pattern came to an abrupt halt in 1898 when, at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, the Supreme Court, fearing the extension of citizenship to, and the permanent integration of, non-White populations into the American polity, suddenly pronounced that the Constitution authorized the holding of colonies. The Court thus sentenced new territories, …

The Federalism Canons As Ordinary Interpretation, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Northwestern University Law Review

Scholars remain generally skeptical of substantive canons of statutory interpretation even as courts continue to employ such canons in important cases. Unlike semantic canons, which help judges discern the best meaning of statutory text in context, substantive canons provide tiebreakers when the text is unclear or require special clarity in order for the text to perform certain functions. Among the substantive canons, the so-called “federalism canons” have been singled out for special scrutiny. The federalism canons are a family of canons that require courts to avoid interpreting an act of Congress to divest states of certain sovereign rights or powers—including …

Federalism, Treaty Norms, And The U.N. Report On American Education, Jorge Barrera-Rojas

Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law

United Nations Special Rapporteurs assess national compliance with international human rights obligations, including educational rights articulated in treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights ("ICESCR"). These evaluations typically involve treaty-bound states with explicit international commitments. However, the applicability of such assessments is less straightforward in non-ratifying federal states, such as the US, which rely on diverse state-level constitutional provisions rather than federal treaty obligations.

This Article critically examines the 2025 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, following the Rapporteur's first official visit specifically addressing U.S. K-12 education policy. The analysis identifies …

Against Doctrinal Siloing: Harmonizing Fiscal Federalism And The U.S. Constitution, David Gamage, Darien Shanske

Faculty Publications

This Essay argues that constitutional law’s treatment of fiscal federalism has fractured into a bewildering collection of doctrinal silos. Federal spending that pressures states, federal preemption of state taxes, the Dormant Commerce Clause, sovereign immunity, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the federal taxing power are all analyzed through distinct tests, even when they implicate the same basic conflict between federal authority and state fiscal autonomy. The result is not just theoretical confusion but inconsistent constitutional answers. Current doctrine can protect states from comparatively modest liabilities while leaving uncertain whether Congress may displace large swaths of state revenue authority. …

Species Of State Constitutional Lockstepping, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

When interpreting state constitutional provisions, state courts frequently take a "lockstep" approach by adopting the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of analogous federal constitutional provisions. Critics often portray lockstep interpretation as misguided and have identified varieties of lockstepping, including unreflective, reflective, prospective, and methodological lockstep interpretation. This Article contributes to these discussions by identifying several additional forms of lockstep interpretation that have thus far gone undiscussed: lazy, mandatory, atextual, and sticky lockstepping.

Several of these variations highlight distinct failures of state courts to independently interpret state constitutions. This includes lazy lockstepping, where state courts tend to engage in repeated, thoughtless …

Spending Programs And The New Roberts Court, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors …

The Missing Constitutional Law Of Executive Conditions, Nicole Huberfeld, Matthew B. Lawrence

Faculty Scholarship

This Article contributes to development of the constitutional law of executive conditions. Courts are wrestling with the constitutionality of federal efforts to encourage what the federal government cannot mandate—speech on particular subjects, participation in cooperative federalism programs, and so on—but have failed to appreciate an important distinction. Binding statutory conditions articulated by Congress or an executive branch delegee (statutory conditions) and non-binding executive conditions articulated by executive branch actors engaged in regulation by deal (executive conditions) are different in constitutionally salient ways that can and should inform the development of workable doctrine. Yet courts, advocates, and scholars have only begun …

This Land Is Our Land: Creating Abortion Safe-Havens In Federal Enclaves Using The Nondelegation Doctrine, Callie Fucarino

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In a post-Dobbs world, the legal status of abortion care is in the hands of the states. Healthcare providers and people seeking abortion care must either take legal risks or betray their morals and oath to care for their patients to follow the law in certain restrictive states. What remains in flux is the status of abortion rights on federal lands. There is currently no federal law that criminalizes abortion, but many states prohibit it. Within some states that have restricted abortion, there lie federal enclaves—certain specified land that the United States government owns, where federal law controls. At first …

Joinder, Not Jurisdiction: Toward A New Theory Of Standing, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This Article builds on an important development in the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence to propose a novel theory that would allow more meaningful access to federal courts while vindicating legitimate separation-of-powers concerns. In its recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court endorsed a theory of standing based on Article II, writing that litigation between private parties—even when explicitly authorized by Congress—can run afoul of the executive branch’s interest in “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” This Article II move has been justifiably criticized. But it is …

The Objective Observer: The Washington State Supreme Court's Remedial Aspirations And Experience On The Ground, David B. Owens

Washington Law Review

The Washington State Supreme Court has adopted an “objective observer rule” for addressing whether race impacted jury selection and extended this rule to evaluating all aspects of Washington courts, including jury trials. The objective observer rule allows courts to evaluate whether decisions in those courtrooms could be viewed as the result of racial bias, even where there is no evidence of specific racial animus and in the absence of racial slurs. The rule, which covers a form of disparate impact, has now existed for over half a decade. This Article outlines the Washington State Supreme Court’s development of the objective …

Criminalization Of Immigration Through State Enforcement: Lessons From Texas’S Latest Efforts To Criminalize Immigration Through Senate Bill 4, A. Regenold Bright

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process And Supremacy As Foundations For The Adequacy Rule: The Remains Of Federalism After Wilbur V. Mullaney, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Stillman E. Wilbur, Jr., was found guilty of murder by a jury in a Maine Superior Court and appealed, contending that the trial judge's instructions violated due process. In essence, the trial court instructed the jury that if it were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilbur had committed a voluntary and intentional killing, malice aforethought was presumed, and therefore, the defendant would be guilty of murder unless he established by a preponderance of the evidence that he had killed in the heat of passion upon sudden provocation, in which case the jury could find him guilty of manslaughter. The …

Climate Exceptionalism In Court, Zachary D. Clopton, David A. Dana

Northwestern University Law Review

Across a range of cases, fossil fuel companies, government actors, and some judges have conceded that climate change is an exceptional phenomenon, only to argue that its exceptional nature is a reason to keep climate change out of court. These parties and judges thus seek to avoid the adjudication of climate cases on the merits, even when the neutral application of existing law would provide for jurisdiction in these cases. We term this phenomenon “climate jurisdiction exceptionalism.”

This Article provides a comprehensive account of climate jurisdiction exceptionalism, focusing on two main threads: Article III standing and state court jurisdiction. First, …

Preclusive Jurisdictional Dismissals, Kevin Song

Northwestern University Law Review

Every litigant deserves their day in court. At the same time, litigants cannot endlessly go to court on the same matter. A complex body of preclusion law balances these fundamental tenets by examining when adjudication of a matter precludes subsequent relitigation. This body of law has evolved over time to preserve the day-in-court ideal in a way that is sensitive to the threats that relitigation present to judicial efficiency, fair adjudication, and repose. Modern preclusion law has settled on a pragmatic approach: where a court has issued a final judgment on the merits but erroneously assumed jurisdiction, relitigation may still …

The Final Frontier Of Federal Power: Understanding, Defining, And Enforcing “Necessary And Proper” To Enhance The General Welfare And Limit Federal Power, Thomas Ralph

Catholic University Law Review

This comment explores the long and inconsistent history of the Necessary and Proper Clause and its unique role as both a grant of power to Congress and a limit on the outer reach of the federal government. The federal government is in theory one of limited powers; however, this promise of the Constitution cannot be truly recognized without developing a robust framework for applying the Necessary and Proper Clause as a reliable source of federal power. After establishing the need for a framework, this comment provides five judicial decision rules that can be applied by trial and appellate courts to …

Put Me In, Coach: Constitutional Concerns Of Judicial Activism And Legislating From The Bench, Jacob M. Elliott

Senior Honors Theses

Unrestrained judicial activism and legislating from the bench at the Supreme Court level place federalism and freedom in jeopardy. By ignoring crucial doctrines like jurisdiction, deference, and independence, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a tendency toward reinterpreting existing Constitutional precedent as they see fit, basing judgments on extra-legal influences, and supplanting Constitutional principles with their own personal policy preferences.

Numerous cases demonstrate the looming threat of judicial overreach; these cases are often considered some of the most damaging and injurious decisions in the history of the American federal judiciary. One potential solution is to appoint justices who will operate …

Disqualification, Immunity, And The Presidency, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States were two momentous decisions in a momentous Supreme Court term. Sharing then former — and now current — President Trump as a party, the decisions hold important implications for presidential power and accountability.

Anderson arose from a suit brought by Colorado voters to challenge Trump’s inclusion on the Republican primary ballot in that state. They argued that Trump organized and incited the mob that attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and disrupted the Electoral College vote count and certification. In their view, this disqualified him from serving as President under section …

Legislative Reforms To End Lawfare By State And Local Prosecutors, Elizabeth Beske

Legislative Testimony & Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. ET. The hearing, "Legislative Reforms to End Lawfare by State and Local Prosecutors," will examine the use of lawfare tactics by the Biden-Harris Administration to weaponize the rule of law against political opponents. It will further highlight legislative reforms to end politically motivated state and local prosecutions.

Defeating Antisemitism In The World’S First Democratic Republic: The American Revolution And Jewish Legal And Political Equality, Paul Finkelman, Lance J. Sussman

Touro Law Review

At a moment when antisemitism is on the rise in the United States, we believe it is useful to consider how the American Revolution led to the first nation in the world where antisemitism was fundamentally contrary to the national constitution and Jews were entitled to full rights as citizens of the national government. As we explain in this article, during and after the Revolution, Jews were free to participate in all professions and general civic life, naturalize (if immigrants), vote, serve on juries, become lawyers and judges, become military officers, and attend universities. Jews had almost none of these …

The Original Function Of Tax Apportionment, Conor Clarke, Peter J. Wiedenbeck

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Constitution’s requirement that direct taxes be apportioned by state population is both confounding and important. At best, tax apportionment is regarded as reflecting the unique federalism concerns of the Founding; at worst, it is viewed as a tainted product of the constitutional compromise over slavery. And, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. United States (2024)—which refused to rule out that apportionment might be required for taxes on unrealized gains—tax apportionment is the subject of renewed legal and scholarly interest.

We consider one historical dimension of tax apportionment that has not been developed elsewhere: its original …

The Regulation Of Presidential Elections, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

There is an unresolved dispute lingering just beneath the surface of a host of laws regulating our elections: does Congress have power under Articles I and II of the Constitution to legislate the nuts-and-bolts rules governing presidential elections? The issue exists because of a textual gap in congressional authority. Article 1 section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to override a state's choices about the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections held in the state. Article II section 1 gives the legislature of each state power to determine the “manner” in which its presidential electors are appointed, …

The Immigration Subpoena Power, Lindsay Nash

Articles

For over a century, the federal government has wielded the immigration subpoena power in darkness, forcing private individuals, subfederal governments, and others to help it detain and deport. This vast administrative power has remained opaque even to those who receive these subpoenas and invisible to those it affects most. Indeed, the very people targeted by these subpoenas often don’t know they exist, much less how they facilitate arrest and deportation. For these reasons—and more—this power has escaped the legal battles raging over other immigration enforcement tactics and the scrutiny of journalists, scholars, and courts. Thus, as state- and locality-held information …

The Primacy Method Of State Constitutional Decisionmaking: Interpreting The Maine Constitution, Glen S. Goodnough

Maine Law Review

The past fifteen years have witnessed the steady growth of both the theory and practice of state constitutional law. Initial inquiry focused on whether state supreme courts should provide their residents more expansive substantive and procedural rights under their state constitutions than required by United States Supreme Court interpretations of the federal Constitution. Given the plethora of state constitutional decisions expanding rights beyond the federally required minimum, or "floor," it is apparent that a large number of state supreme courts have settled the question of whether they will in fact interpret their state constitutions in such a manner. Nevertheless, lingering …