Constitutional Law Commons^™

Panel 5: Federalism And Separation Of Powers

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Eric Segall

Panelists: Stephen Griffin, Neil Kinkopf, and Ilya Somin

Subfederal Immigration Regulation And The Trump Effect, Huyen Pham, Pham Hoang Van

Faculty Scholarship

The restrictive changes made by the Trump presidency on U.S. immigration policy have been widely reported: the significant increases in both interior and border enforcement, the travel ban prohibiting immigration from majority-Muslim countries, and the termination of the DACA program. Beyond the traditional levers of federal immigration control, this administration has also moved aggressively to harness the enforcement power of local and state police to increase interior immigration enforcement. To that end, the administration has employed both voluntary measures (like signing 287(g) agreements deputizing local police to enforce immigration laws) and involuntary measures (threatening to defund jurisdictions with so-called “sanctuary” …

Thornton & The Pursuit Of The American Presidency, Jackson C. Smith J.D., Llm

Ohio Northern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

Since the New Deal of the mid-1930s, Congress has asserted virtually absolute power to (1) “regulate Commerce ... among the States,” (2) tax and spend for the “general Welfare,” and (3) delegate “legislative Power[ ]” to the executive branch. From 1937 until 1994, the Supreme Court rejected every claim that such statutes had exceeded Congress’s Article I authority and usurped the states’ reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. Over the past quarter century, conservative Justices have tried, and failed, to develop principled constitutional limits on the federal government while keeping the modern administrative and social welfare state largely intact.

The …

Saving The Electoral College: Why The National Popular Vote Would Undermine Democracy, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Ever since the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College, Congress has tried to overturn it. The latest attempt is taking place not in Congress, but in state legislatures around the country, where a well-financed campaign by a private California group calling itself "National Popular Vote" (NPV) is proposing an "interstate compact" to circumvent the process for amending the U.S. Constitution. If adopted by states representing a majority of electoral votes, the signatory states would bind themselves to ignore the popular votes within their respective states, and instead allocate their electoral votes to the candidate whom the media proclaimed to be …

Qualified Immunity And Constitutional Structure, Katherine Mims Crocker

Michigan Law Review

A range of scholars has subjected qualified immunity to a wave of criticism— and for good reasons. But the Supreme Court continues to apply the doctrine in ever more aggressive ways. By advancing two claims, this Article seeks to make some sense of this conflict and to suggest some thoughts toward a resolution.

First, while the Court has offered and scholars have rejected several rationales for the doctrine, layering in an account grounded in structural constitutional concerns provides a historically richer and analytically thicker understanding of the current qualified-immunity regime. For suits against federal officials, qualified immunity acts as a …

Oh, What A Truism The Tenth Amendment Is: State Sovereignty, Sovereign Immunity, And Individual Liberties, Sharon E. Rush

UF Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court under the late Chief Justice Rehnquist and now Chief Justice Roberts takes the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty seriously. It also takes the Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity seriously. Moreover, the contemporary Court’s interpretations of Congress’s Article I powers are based on its concomitant interpretations of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, which the Court has infused with the idea that an inherent part of a state’s sovereignty is not just its prerogative not to have its treasuries invaded, but also includes its right not to have its dignity assaulted. Protecting the dignity of states and other …

Constitutional Cohesion And The Right To Public Health, Daniel G. Aaron, James G. Hodge, Haley Augur, Ashley Cheff, C. Joseph Ross Daval, Drew Hensley

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Despite years of significant legal improvements stemming from a renaissance in public health law, Americans still face major challenges and barriers in assuring their communal health. Reversals of legal reforms coupled with maligned policies and chronic underfunding contribute to diminished public health outcomes. Underlying preventable morbidity and mortality nationally is an interpretive reality of our existing constitutional infrastructure. In essence there is no general obligation of government to protect or promote the public’s health. Under principles of “constitutional cohesion,” structural facets and rights-based principles interwoven within the Constitution protect individuals and groups from governmental vices (i.e., oppression, overreaching, tyranny, and …

A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

President Trump’s executive order rescinding federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” has brought a critical, but overlooked, question of constitutional law to the forefront of the political debate: how does the Spending Clause apply to local governments? The purpose of the Spending Clause is to empower the federal government to bargain with the states to enact policies it cannot enact itself. This power, however, is constrained within the confines of federalism. The Supreme Court has sought to restrict the Spending Clause by crafting the Dole-NFIB framework, a test to determine whether a federal grant has compromised federalism. At its …

The Theory And Practice Of Contestatory Federalism, James A. Gardner

Journal Articles

Madisonian theory holds that a federal division of power is necessary to the protection of liberty, but that federalism is a naturally unstable form of government organization that is in constant danger of collapsing into either unitarism or fragmentation. Despite its inherent instability, this condition may be permanently maintained, according to Madison, through a constitutional design that keeps the system in equipoise by institutionalizing a form of perpetual contestation between national and subnational governments. The theory, however, does not specify how that contestation actually occurs, and by what means.

This paper investigates Madison’s hypothesis by documenting the methods actually deployed …

The Theory And Practice Of Contestatory Federalism, James A. Gardner

William & Mary Law Review

Madisonian theory holds that a federal division of power is necessary to the protection of liberty, but that federalism is a naturally unstable form of government organization that is in constant danger of collapsing into either unitarism or fragmentation. Despite its inherent instability, this condition may be permanently maintained, according to Madison, through a constitutional design that keeps the system in equipoise by institutionalizing a form of perpetual contestation between national and subnational governments. The theory, however, does not specify how that contestation actually occurs, and by what means.

This paper investigates Madison’s hypothesis by documenting the methods actually deployed …

Murphy V. Ncaa: The Supreme Court's Latest Advance In Chemerinsky's "Federalism Revolution", Jonathan O. Ballard Jr.

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silencing State Courts, Jeffrey Steven Gordon

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In state courts across the Nation, an absolutist conception of the First Amendment is preempting common law speech torts. From intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion, to intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent infliction of emotional distress, state courts are dismissing speech tort claims on the pleadings because of the broad First Amendment defense recognized by Snyder v. Phelps in 2011. This Article argues, contrary to the scholarly consensus, that Snyder was a categorical departure from the methodology adopted by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case that first applied the First …

Contumacious Responses To Firearms Legislation (Leosa) Balancing Federalism Concerns, Royce De R. Barondes

Faculty Publications

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is one of the handful of federal statutes that preempt state firearms regulation. It allows covered individuals (certain current and retired qualified law enforcement personnel) to possess firearms notwithstanding assorted state restrictions-to protect themselves and to supplement local law enforcement efforts.

The act reflects a careful legislative balancing of federalism concerns. Although it relies on states and localities to issue the authorizing credentials, it does not mandate states create a licensing regime out of whole cloth. The act ultimately presents issues requiring a nuanced assessment of the doctrine proscribing federal commandeering of the …

The Problem Of Purely Procedural Preemption Presented By The Federal Hear Act, William L. Charron

Pepperdine Law Review

The underlying purpose of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (the HEAR Act), which is to return Nazi-looted artwork to victims or their families, is undeniably laudable. Restituting Nazi-looted artwork is and has been a moral objective of this country since the conclusion of World War II. It is equally clear that victims and their families can often face obstacles to gathering evidence from the war that would demonstrate Nazi theft in court. The HEAR Act strives to address these concerns by imposing a federal statute of limitations over all state law causes of action that would enable …

Book Review: 51 Imperfect Solutions: States And The Making Of American Constitutional Law, By Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Steven H. Steinglass

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

The Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, has written an excellent book on the importance of state constitutions as bulwarks against state abuse and the source of protections of individual rights. The book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law, argues that individual rights are more secure when both federal and state constitutional protections are strong. And our system of federalism and the quality of state and federal judicial decisions are improved when there are state constitutional safeguards.

Justiciability, Federalism, And The Administrative State, Zachary D. Clopton

Cornell Law Review

Article III provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to certain justiciable cases and controversies. So if a plaintiff bringing a federal claim lacks constitutional standing or her dispute is moot under Article III, then a federal court should dismiss. But this dismissal need not end the story. This Article suggests a simple, forward-looking reading of case-or-controversy dismissals: they should be understood as invitations to legislators to consider other pathways for adjudication. A case dismissed for lack of standing, for mootness, or for requesting an advisory opinion might be a candidate for resolution in a state court …

Active Judicial Governance, James A. Gardner

Journal Articles

Evidence marshaled in a new article by Jonathan Marshfield suggests strongly that unlike judges of U.S. federal courts, judges of American state supreme courts both recognize and embrace their role as active participants in the process of indirect popular self-rule. Consequently, they much more willingly serve as active and self-conscious vectors of governance. This is not to say that state judges lack appropriate judicial humility; it is to say merely that they possess a different and more nuanced understanding of the role of courts in American government than some of their federal counterparts.

Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone

Pepperdine Law Review

The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …

A Study In Sovereignty: Federalism, Political Culture, And The Future Of Conservatism, Clint Hamilton

Senior Honors Theses

This thesis confronts symptoms of an issue which is eroding at the principles of conservative advocacy, specifically those dealing with federalism. It contrasts modern definitions of federalism with those which existed in the late 1700s, and then attempts to determine the cause of the change. Concluding that the change was caused by a shift in American political identity, the author argues that the conservative movement must begin a conversation on how best to adapt to the change to prevent further drifting away from conservative principles.

Third Circuit Confusion: Ncaa V. Christie And An Opportunity To Defend Federalism, Zachary Buckheit

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

NCAA v. Christie will determine whether a federal statute that prevents a state legislature from repealing a previously enacted state law violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. In 2014, New Jersey passed a state law repealing state prohibitions against sports wagering in Atlantic City. Five sports leagues sued New Jersey in federal court. The leagues asserted that the new state law violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), a federal law. New Jersey claimed PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and was accordingly unconstitutional. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that PASPA does not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine because it …

Husted V. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?, Chris Smith

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ohio’s Supplemental Process for maintaining its voter rolls violates the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). The Court’s opinion will shape the landscape of voting rights, as many states are struggling to meet the dual mandates of election sanctity and increased voter access. This commentary argues that the Supreme Court can give states a guideline for what is an acceptable process that complies with the conflicting federal policies in the NVRA and HAVA. The Court should …

Sovereign Immunity And The Crisis Of Constitutional Absolutism: Interpreting The Eleventh Amendment After Alden V. Maine, Matthew Mustokoff

Maine Law Review

Toward the end of her article, The History of Mainstream Legal Thought, Elizabeth Mensch identifies federalism as a dominant theme in recent Supreme Court decisions. The Court's focus on questions of federalism, however, cannot be directly attributed to the emergence of any specific social or political issues dividing champions of strong central government from defenders of state sovereignty. Instead, the Court's scrutiny seems to have arisen from a perplexing, frustrating, and self-contradictory body of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence and the perpetual call for judicial clarification it has produced. While the text of the Eleventh Amendment is unambiguous—its language specifically bestows immunity …

Analyzing Justice Cardozo’S Opinions On The Constitutionality Of The New Deal, Robert J. Pushaw Jr

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federalism, The Environment And The Charter In Canada, Dayna Scott

Articles & Book Chapters

This Chapter reviews the key jurisprudential developments in relation to the division of powers in Canada, exploring how the shared jurisdiction over the “environment” created by sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution has historically and continues to shape environmental law and policy. In addition to this federal-provincial struggle, the chapter considers the current trend towards local regulation of environmental matters according to the principle of ‘subsidiarity’, and the growing recognition of the ‘inherent jurisdiction’ of Indigenous peoples. The contemporary dynamics are explored through two critical policy case studies highlighting barriers to environmental justice: safe drinking water on reserves, and …

Guns N' Ganja: How Federalism Criminalizes The Lawful Use Of Marijuana, Ira P. Robbins

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Federalism is a vital tenet of our Republic. Although federal law is the supreme law of the land, our Constitution recognizes the integral role that state law plays in the national scheme. Like any pharmaceutical drug that withstands rounds of clinical testing, state law functions as a laboratory in which Congress can evaluate and potentially adopt novel policies on a nation-wide basis. Most of the time, federal and state law exist harmoniously, complementing one another; other times, however, the two systems clash, striking a dissonant chord.

In the United States, state marijuana laws are currently on a crash course with …

State Action And The Constitution's Middle Band, Louis Michael Seidman

Michigan Law Review

On conventional accounts, the state action doctrine is dichotomous. When the government acts, constitutional limits take hold and the government action is invalid if those limits are exceeded. When the government fails to act, the state action doctrine leaves decisions to individuals, who are permitted to violate what would otherwise be constitutional constraints.

It turns out though that the modern state action doctrine creates three rather than two domains. There is indeed a private, inner band where there is thought to be insufficient government action to trigger constitutional constraints, but often there is also a public, outer band where there …

Our Regionalism, Jessica Bulman-Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

This article provides an account of Our Regionalism to supplement the many accounts of Our Federalism. After describing the legal forms regions assume in the United States — through interstate cooperation, organization of federal administrative agencies, and hybrid state-federal efforts — it explores how regions have shaped American governance across the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

In the years leading up to the New Deal, commentators invoked regions to resist centralization, arguing that state coordination could forestall expansion of the federal government. But regions were soon deployed to a different end, as the federal government relied on regional administration to …

A Prudential Take On A Prudential Takings Doctrine, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is set to decide a case requesting reconsideration of a doctrine that has long bedeviled constitutional litigants and commentators. The case is Knick v. Township of Scott, and the doctrine is the “ripeness” rule from Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank that plaintiffs seeking to raise takings claims under the Fifth Amendment must pursue state-created remedies first — the so-called “compensation prong” (as distinguished from a separate “takings prong”). This Essay argues that to put the compensation prong in the best light possible, the Court should view the requirement as a “prudential” rule rather than …

The Challenge Of The New Preemption, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The past decade has witnessed the emergence and rapid spread of a new and aggressive form of state preemption of local government action across a wide range of subjects, including among others firearms, workplace conditions, sanctuary cities, antidiscrimination laws, and environmental and public health regulation. Particularly striking are punitive measures that do not just preempt local measures but also hit local officials or governments with criminal or civil fines, state aid cutoffs, or liability for damages, as well as broad preemption proposals that would virtually end local initiative over a wide range of subjects. The rise of the new preemption …