Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Roberts-Kennedy Court And Post-Political Democracy, Zephyr Teachout

Schmooze 'tickets'

This Essay explores the ideological underpinnings of the modern Supreme Court’s election law decisions, arguing that the Court does not have a strong commitment to federalism or to unfettered debate or to the mistrustful citizen. Instead, the opinions reveal a complacency about corruption and a narrow view of the role of citizens. The Essay is part of a volume on neoliberalism for Law and Contemporary Problems.

The Compact Clause And National Popular Vote: Implications For The Federal Structure, Robert M. Hardaway, Tara Ross

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The Electoral College is a vital part of the Founders' federalist Constitution. NPV pretends to be in line with this federalist structure, but its claims are disingenuous. In reality, NPV would destroy the federalist nature of the presidential election process. A system that today operates as a combination of democracy and federalism would change: It would instead operate as pure democracy. This change from federalism to pure democracy would be made even if a majority of states disapproved. As a policy matter, eliminating federalism from the presidential election process will have many practical consequences that make such a change inadvisable. …

Immigration And Cooperative Federalism: Toward A Doctrinal Framework, Ming H. Chen

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Immigration And Cooperative Federalism: Toward A Doctrinal Framework, Ming H. Chen

Publications

What can the new federalism teach us about what is happening in immigration law? The changing relationship of federal-state government in the regulation of immigrants has led to the creation of “immigration federalism” as a field of scholarship. Most of this scholarly attention has been directed at resisting restrictionist legislation that encourages vigorous law enforcement against undocumented immigrants. The scholarly tilt is especially pronounced since the Supreme Court recently struck down several provisions of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s restrictive law enforcement legislation. However, law enforcement is only one type of regulation, and the overwhelming focus on it skews the broader debate …

Same-Sex Marriage, Federalism, And Judicial Supremacy, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

Justice Kennedy's opinion in United States v. Windsor is characterized by a number of strained and wavering constitutional claims. Prominent among these is the argument that the principle of federalism calls into question the congressional decision to adopt the traditional definition of marriage, which the state of New York rejected. An examination of earlier federalism cases demonstrates that Kennedy's appreciation for federalism is in fact severely limited and suggests and that his lax use of legal authority is directly if perversely related to this limited appreciation.

Federalism cases prior to Windsor show that Justice Kennedy supports state authority only when …

Autonomy And Isomorphism: The Unfulfilled Promise Of Structural Autonomy In American State Constitutions, James A. Gardner

Journal Articles

In the American system of federalism, states have almost complete freedom to adopt institutions and practices of internal self-governance that they find best-suited to the needs and preferences of their citizens. Nevertheless, states have not availed themselves of these opportunities: the structural provisions of state constitutions tend to converge strongly with one another and with the U.S. Constitution. This paper examines two important periods of such convergence: the period from 1776 through the first few decades of the nineteenth century, when states were inventing institutions of democratic governance and representation; and the period following the Supreme Court’s one person, one …

The Sum Of All Delegated Power: A Response To Richard Primus, The Limits Of Enumeration, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

In his provocative article, The Limits of Enumeration, Richard Primus rejects what he calls the “internal-limits canon” and challenges the assumption that the powers of Congress do not add up to a general police power, such that “there are things Congress cannot do, even without reference to affirmative prohibitions like those in the Bill of Rights.” Primus does not claim that federal power actually does amount to a general police power, only that it might. His principal claim is that nothing in the theoretical nature of enumerated power requires an a priori limit on the aggregate scope of delegated authority. …

Viva Conditional Federal Spending!, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Articles

From the rise of the New Deal through the constitutional litigation over the Affordable Care Act (ACA), conditional federal spending has been a major target for those who have sought to limit the scope of federal power. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, as the Supreme Court narrowed Congress's power to regulate private primary conduct and state conduct in the last twenty years,' conditional spending looked like the way Congress might be able to circumvent the limitations imposed by the Court's decisions. Thus, members of Congress quickly sought to blunt the impact of the Court's decision to …

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, …

The Conflict Of Visions In Nfib V. Sebelius, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

In 2010, few anticipated the fate of healthcare reform would rest with the Supreme Court. Yet National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [hereinafter NFIB] emerged as a watershed case that could remake the constitutional landscape. NFIB presented a conflict between two constitutional visions of federal power and the role of the courts in policing such limits--an unconstrained vision, under which limits on federal power are enforced primarily through the political process, and a constrained vision, under which constitutional limits on federal power are enforced by the courts. The contrasting views of the constitutionality of the individual mandate and …

Insights From Canada For American Constitutional Federalism, Stephen F. Ross

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), has again focused widespread public attention on the Court as an arbiter of the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The topic of the proper role a nation's highest court in this respect has been important and controversial throughout not only American, but also Canadian history, raising questions of constitutional theory for a federalist republic: What justifies unelected judges interfering with the ordinary political process with regard to federalism questions? Can courts create judicially manageable doctrines to police …

The Jurisprudence Of Union, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

The primary goal of this Article is to demonstrate that the interest in national unity does important, independent work in the law of vertical federalism. We have long been accustomed to treating union as a constitutionally operative value in cases involving the duties states owe one another (i.e. horizontal federalism cases), but in cases involving the relationship between the federal government and the states, the interest in union is routinely ignored. This Article shows that, across a wide range of cases relating to the allocation of power between the federal government and the states, the states are constrained by a …

Live And Let Die: Puerto Rico — The Unincorporated Jewel Of The Caribbean, Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud

Faculty Scholarship

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States. However, the ambiguous meaning of that phrase has allowed for inconsistent treatment of Puerto Rico by the Supreme Court of the United States. This short article briefly tackles the manner in which the federal government most recently applied the federal death penalty to Puerto Rico despite the island's constitutional ban against capital punishment.

Not The Power To Destroy: An Effects Theory Of The Tax Power, Robert D. Cooter, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s “new federalism” decisions impose modest limits on the regulatory authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. According to those decisions, the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to use penalties to regulate interstate commerce, but not to regulate noncommercial conduct. What prevents Congress from penalizing non-commercial conduct by calling a penalty a tax and invoking the Taxing Clause? The only obstacle is the distinction between a penalty and a tax for purposes of Article I, Section 8. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB), the Court considered whether the minimum coverage provision in the Patient Protection and …

The Federal Circuit As A Federal Court, Paul R. Gugliuzza

William & Mary Law Review

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals and, as a consequence, the last word on many legal issues important to innovation policy. This Article shows how the Federal Circuit augments its already significant power by impeding other government institutions from influencing the patent system. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has shaped patent-law doctrine, along with rules of jurisdiction, procedure, and administrative law, to preserve and expand the court's power in four interinstitutional relationships: the court's federalism relationship with state courts, its separation of powers relationship with the executive and legislative branches, its vertical …

Fish And Federalism: How The Asian Carp Litigation Highlights A Decifiency In The Federal Common Law Displacement Analysis, Molly M. Watters

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

In response to the growing threat posed by the progress of Asian carp up the Mississippi River toward the Great Lakes, and with increased frustration with the federal response to the imminent problem, in 2010, five Great Lakes states sued the Army Corps of Engineers and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago to force a more desirable and potentially more effective strategy to prevent the Asian carp from infiltrating the Great Lakes: closing the Chicago locks. This Note examines the federal common law displacement analysis through the lens of the Asian carp litigation. Both the Federal District Court …

Erie's International Effect, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

To what extent does the Erie doctrine apply in an international context? In his article When Erie Goes International, Professor Childress argues that a federal court choosing between state law and the law of a foreign nation should often (or perhaps always) ignore Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. and use federal choice of law rules rather than the rules of the state where the federal court is located.

In this Essay, I have three points to make in response. The first is that Childress’s article, even if successful, leaves the bulk of the Erie doctrine unchanged in …

Preemption And Choice-Of-Law Coordination, Erin O'Hara O'Connor, Larry E. Ribstein

Michigan Law Review

The doctrine treating federal preemption of state law has been plagued by uncertainty and confusion. Part of the problem is that courts purport to interpret congressional intent when often Congress has never considered the particular preemption question at issue. This Article suggests that courts deciding preemption cases should take seriously a commonly articulated rationale for the federalization of law: the need to coordinate applicable legal standards in order to facilitate a national market or to otherwise provide clear guidance to parties regarding the laws that apply to their conduct. In situations where federal law can serve a coordinating function but …

Religions As Sovereigns: Why Religion Is "Special", Elizabeth Clark

Faculty Scholarship

Commentators increasingly challenge religion’s privileged legal status, arguing that it is not “special” or distinct from other associations or philosophical or conscientious claims. I propose that religion is “special” because it functions metaphorically as a legal sovereign, asserting supreme authority over a realm of human life. Under a religion-as-sovereign theory, religious freedom can be understood as at least partial deference to a religious sovereign in a system of shared or overlapping sovereignty. This Article suggests that federalism, which also involves shared sovereignty, can provide a useful heuristic device for examining religious freedom. Specifically, the Article examines a range of federalism …

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Wyoming: Appomattox Courthouse Revisited , Richard M. Stephens

Pepperdine Law Review

A highly divided Court again addressed the relatively new doctrine in constitutional law: state exemption from federal regulations due to the concept of federalism. Although the Court applied the tests from National League of Cities v. Usury and its progeny, the Court reached a different result which, without expressly overruling that controversial case, severely limited National League of Cities to its facts. The hope of modern states' rights advocates proved to be short lived.

A General Theory Of Governance: Due Process And Lawmaking Power, Louise Weinberg

William & Mary Law Review

This Article proposes a general theory describing the nature and sources of law in American courts. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins is rejected for this purpose. Better, more general theory is available, flowing from the Due Process Clauses. At its narrowest, the proposed theory is consonant with Erie but generalizes it, embracing federal as well as state law and statutory as well as decisional law in both state and federal courts. More broadly, beyond this unification of systemic thinking, the interest-analytic methodology characteristic of due process extends to a range of substantive constitutional problems. These include problems concerning both the …

Valid Rule Due Process Challenges: Bond V. United States And Erie's Constitutional Source, Kermit Roosevelt Iii

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Limitations On Land Use Controls, Environmental Regulations And Governmental Exactions, 2013 Edition, Garrett Power

Book Gallery

This electronic book is published in a searchable PDF format as a part of the E-scholarship Repository of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. It is an “open content” casebook intended for classroom use in courses in Constitutional Law, Land Use Control, and Environmental Law and. It consists of 130 odd judicial opinions (most rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court) carefully selected from the two hundred years of American constitutional history which address the clash between public sovereignty and private property. The text considers both the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. …

Windsor Products: Equal Protection From Animus, Dale Carpenter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Windsor has puzzled commentators, who have tended to overlook or dismiss its ultimate conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it arose from animus. What we have in Justice Kennedy’s opinion is Windsor Products — an outpouring of decades of constitutional development whose fountainhead is Carolene Products and whose tributaries are the gay-rights and federalism streams. This paper presents the constitutional anti-animus principle, including what constitutes animus, why it offends the Constitution, and how the Supreme Court determines it is present. The paper also discusses why the Court was …

The Wages Of Crying Judicial Restraint, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Five Justices voted to affirm the proposition that the Constitution creates a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the courts will enforce those limits. To understand why this victory was possible, it is important to understand that there are not just two versions of federalism, pre‐New Deal and post‐New Deal. There is also a third version. The failure to recognize the third version goes a long way to explain why most of my academic colleagues predicted that the right would have no chance to prevail in our constitutional challenge to the individual insurance mandate.

The first version of …

Chief Justice Robert's Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate under the Taxing Clause. Numerous academic and popular commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his political courage and institutional pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. The essay contends that the opinion is, in two distinct senses, fundamentally …

A Response To Beyond Separation: Professor Copeland’S Ambitious Proposal For “Integrative” Federalism, Elizabeth Weeks

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Response: Commandeering Information (And Informing The Commandeered), Anthony Johnstone

Faculty Law Review Articles

This article is a response to Can the States Keep Secrets from the Federal Government? by Robert Mikos. The author amplifies and extends Professor Mikos's first point, which identifies the commandeering problem and suggests some limits to his second point, which proposes a judicially managed solution.

The Transformation Of Immigration Federalism, Jennifer M. Chacón

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Can The States Keep Secrets From The Federal Government?, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

States amass troves of information detailing the regulated activities of their citizens, including activities that violate federal law. Not surprisingly, the federal government is keenly interested in this information. It has ordered reluctant state officials to turn over their confidential files concerning medical marijuana, juvenile criminal history, immigration status, tax payments, and employment discrimination, among many other matters, to help enforce federal laws against private citizens. Many states have objected to these demands, citing opposition to federal policies and concerns about the costs of breaching confidences, but the lower courts have uniformly upheld the federal government’s power to commandeer information …