Constitutional Law Commons^™

Limitation For Liberty: A Commentary On Federalism And The Tenth Amendment, Riley Banker

Senior Honors Theses

The concept of Federalism is essential to the very survival of the United States. However, recent decisions by the Supreme Court have illustrated attempts by the federal government to expand its authority and undermine the balance of power created by Federalism. This thesis will explore the concept of Federalism to demonstrate how it can best be protected. First, this thesis will address the origins of Federalism. Second, it will show how the principles of Federalism are manifested within the founding documents of the United States. Finally, this thesis will analyze current events including Supreme Court cases to demonstrate a concerning …

Colonizing By Contract, Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud

Faculty Scholarship

Since 1898, Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States, meaning that Congress wields plenary power over the Island. Although scholars have highlighted the history and some modern manifestations of this power, conversations about how plenary power affects the territories have largely ignored constitutional criminal procedure.

This Article is the first to center the territory’s criminal legal system within the broader debate over the exercise of plenary power. In doing so, it fills significant gaps in the constitutional and criminal law literature on the territories by uncovering how the federal government’s plenary power affects local criminal adjudication. This …

Framing Indian Federalism, Madhav Khosla

Faculty Scholarship

This article focuses on a set of historical and contemporary developments in Indian constitutionalism that implicate the question of democracy and the question of federalism. Its goal is to connect the design and application of federal powers with what many regard as an important telos of federalism, namely, the promotion of democracy. Towards this end, it holds up for consideration India’s federal model, which, it is suggested, focuses on the presence of a subnational demos rather than the political identity of subnational units. Such an understanding of federalism de-emphasizes the territorial aspect of federalism and allows federal design to accommodate …

Not-So-Special Solicitude, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In a high-profile case last term about state standing to sue in federal court, Justice Gorsuch deemed it “hard not to wonder why” the majority said “nothing about ‘special solicitude.’” The silence was indeed surprising, for in a landmark decision several years earlier, the Supreme Court had declared that states were “entitled to special solicitude”—presumably meaning some sort of preferential treatment—“in [the] standing analysis.” And since then, commentators had depicted the concept as permitting opportunistic states to wage ideological crusades in courts across the country, especially through administrative-law attacks on federal-government defendants.

But what if “special solicitude” is not so …

The Basis For Election Exceptionalism In Justiciability And Related Doctrines: Constitutional Compensation In Light Of Purcell, Vikram D. Amar, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

Pursuant to the so-called Purcell doctrine, lower federal courts (and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court itself) are supposed to refrain from issuing remedies that would alter the rules for election administration in the run-up to Election Day. Whether or not the Purcell rule’s purported justifications are persuasive (e.g., concerns about voter confusion, candidate and campaign expectations, smooth operation of election logistics), one tremendously problematic entailment of Purcell is that elections are held (and candidates are elected and policies are determined) even when serious doubt exists about the legality of the contests under federal statutes and the Constitution. Because of these …

The Problem With Direct Collateral Review, Jaden M. Lessnick

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal habeas review of state convictions is sharply circumscribed for a reason: Granting the writ of habeas corpus disrupts the federalism and finality interests that lie at the heart of state sovereignty over criminal law. Both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Supreme Court’s equitable bars to relief reflect the structural dangers inherent in collateral review of state convictions. Given the increasing unavailability of federal habeas relief, state prisoners have turned to another vehicle for collateral federal review, one that bypasses AEDPA’s demanding standard: direct review of state post-conviction proceedings. And regrettably, the Court has entertained …

New Challenges To Judicial Federalism, James A. Gardner

Journal Articles

The theory of judicial federalism holds that state constitutions are jurisprudentially independent from the U.S. Constitution, and that state supreme courts consequently may, and often should, interpret state constitutions differently from how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the federal Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court increasingly turns back to the states important decisions of constitutional policy, such as the scope of reproductive rights or the nature and content of limitations on partisan gerrymandering, state constitutional law looms ever larger as a potential ground for resolution of these issues.

The conditions for a revival of judicial federalism today, however, are far …

State Compacts Vs. Emergency Powers, Ann Melise Mullins

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

It has been a continuous battle between state governments and the federal government on which party is best suited to provide relief and aid to citizens in times of natural disasters and public health crises. This paper will analyze the history of the state and federal government’s involvement in providing aid and relief in times of national crises, as well as the Constitutional provisions for which party should take responsibility.

Horizontal Federalism & The Big State "Problem", Elizabeth Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

California regulates pork; does it offend the Constitution that pork producers in other states must comply with its regulations if they want to sell Californians pork? In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court emerged sharply divided in its approach to the practical extraterritorial spillover effect of the in-state regulations of a tantalizing market. Although a fractured majority of the Court upheld California’s Proposition 12 against a dormant Commerce Clause challenge, at least five Justices registered profound discomfort, with one dissenter expressly inviting consideration of the problem through the lens of other clauses. This Article analyzes “the …

Personal Data And Vaccination Hesitancy: Covid-19’S Lessons For Public Health Federalism, Charles D. Curran

Catholic University Law Review

During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the federal government adopted a more centralized approach to the collection of public health data. Although the states previously had controlled the storage of vaccination information, the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed plan required the reporting of recipients’ personal information on the grounds that it was needed to monitor the safety of novel vaccines and ensure correct administration of their multi-dose regimens.

Over the course of the pandemic response, this more centralized federal approach to data collection added a new dimension to pre-existing vaccination hesitancy. Requirements that recipients furnish individual information deterred vaccination among undocumented …

The Wages Of Hitching Wagons, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This article examines the challenges faced by states that align their constitutions with federal doctrine through the practice of "lockstepping"—adopting federal legal standards into state law. Lockstepping binds states to federal law, regardless of its trajectory. Part I traces the evolution of standing doctrine in both federal courts under Article III and Kentucky courts under its constitution. Part II presents an originalist critique of the federal injury-in-fact requirement, highlighting emerging efforts to abandon this requirement in federal courts. Part III discusses the dilemma states like Kentucky face, balancing constitutional interpretation, federalism, and legal stability.

The Marijuana Insurgency: Federalism And Social Reframing In Policy Reform, Matthew P. Cavedon

Seattle University Law Review

After fifty years of federal prohibition, marijuana reform efforts have won political and legal success. These victories hold lessons for anyone seeking to resist federal law without being able to directly affect it.

Victory can come from reframing an issue. For marijuana reform, social reframing—not formal legal analysis or material factors—provides the best explanation for how advocates achieved change. Their unconventional political tactics, akin to those used by insurgents in wartime, undercut federal prohibition by winning hearts and minds.

This is an analysis of the sociology of legal change. It is also the story of how ordinary Americans retook personal …

Channeling A Federal Commitment To Education Through State Constitutions And Courts, Nicole Sunderlin, Evan Caminker

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This article examines the evolution of efforts to secure a federal right to education, highlighting the unsuccessful attempts at the federal level and the shift to state constitutional litigation, which has yielded mixed and limited outcomes. Part I outlines these failed efforts and their consequences. Part II introduces Professor Black’s proposal for a federal right to education, anchored in the State Citizenship Clause. Part III presents a new federalism model that suggests federal constitutional commitments should guide the interpretation of state constitutional provisions, particularly regarding education. The article concludes by advocating for state courts to adopt a more robust interpretation …

Defining The Relationship Between Municipal Bankruptcy And Modern Federalism Jurisprudence, John Allen Livingston

FIU Law Review

This article delves into the relationship between municipal bankruptcy law and modern federalism jurisprudence, particularly focusing on Chapter 9 reform proposals and its constitutional implications. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic's economic challenges, the article explores the historical context of municipal bankruptcy, critiques of Chapter 9's limitations, and proposals for empowering bankruptcy courts. It analyzes key doctrines of federalism such as the Anti-Commandeering and Anti-Coercion Doctrines, as well as the Clear Statement Rule, to evaluate the constitutionality of expanding bankruptcy courts' powers. The article navigates through scholarly debates, proposing a nuanced perspective on the role of federalism, state sovereignty, …

The Lawlessness Of Sackett V. Epa, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When the Supreme Court speaks on a disputed statutory interpretation question, its words and edicts undoubtedly are the final judicial word, binding lower courts and the executive branch. Its majority opinions are the law. But the Court’s opinions can nonetheless be assessed for how well they hew to fundamental elements of respect for the rule of law. In particular, law-respecting versus law-neglecting or lawless judicial work by the Court can be assessed in the statutory interpretation, regulatory, and separation of power realms against the following key criteria, which in turn are based on some basic rule of law tenets: analysis …

State Sovereign Immunity And The New Purposivism, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Journal Articles

Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting statutes …

The State Of Our Republic: State Constitutions’ Role In Creating A More Perfect Union, Caroline Bullock

CMC Senior Theses

This thesis situates state constitutionalism in the modern context of federal constitutional paralysis. By tracing patterns of state constitutional development, we find that states were always the fundamental setting of democracy, and there has always been critical action happening at state legislatures, in state courts, and through state constitutional change. State constitutions provide an active means to achieve progress and protect rights not federally enshrined (and thus, endangered by the political process). The use of state constitutions to prescribe ways of life, protect individual and specialized rights, and to limit local governments has always occurred, but with the current federal …

Narrow But Deep: The Mcculloch Principle, Collective-Action Theory, And Section Three Enforcement, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

In Trump v. Anderson, 144 S. Ct. 662 (2024), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Colorado Supreme Court erred in excluding President Donald J. Trump from the Republican Party's primary ballot in the state.  The Court reasoned that the Constitution makes Congress, not the states, solely responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Scholars of Section 3 have demonstrated that Section 3 is self-executing, so the Court's rationale lacks a sound basis in the original or contemporary meaning of the text of the Civil War Amendments, the original intent of their drafters, or …

The Next Generation, Jeremiah Chin

Articles

What would the law look like if we let children remake it? Laws govern, classify, and circumscribe children who inherit the law and its consequences. Discourses of power invoke children as rhetorical strategies to gain political favor or obviate a position—yet children are uncritically excluded from participating in the systems that control them. Children are subjected to the laws and objects of legislation, but denied the rights, autonomy, or authority to participate in the making of law and policy. Even the conceptualization of the constitutional rights of children is treated as an assumption, ill-defined and under theorized by traditional legal …

A History Of Corporate Law Federalism In The Twentieth Century, William W. Bratton

Seattle University Law Review

This Article describes the emergence of corporate law federalism across a long twentieth century. The period begins with New Jersey’s successful initiation of charter competition in 1888 and ends with the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. The federalism in question describes the interrelation of state and federal regulation of corporate internal affairs. This Article takes a positive approach, pursuing no normative bottom line. It makes six observations: (1) the federalism describes a division of subject matter, with internal affairs regulated by the states and securities issuance and trading regulated by the federal government; (2) the federalism is an …

Channeling A Federal Right To Education Through State Constitutions And Courts, Nicole Sunderlin, Evan Caminker

Articles

Professor Black attributes the ubiquitous adoption of education clauses in state constitutions in the immediate pre- and especially post-Reconstruction era to a “constitutional compromise” struck by Congress and the states. The State Citizenship commitment was designed to enhance the republican nature of both levels of governance by ensuring broader access to political participation through voting and broader access to public education to inform and support democratic deliberation. The education component of this commitment was uniquely secured, argues Black, through a state-federal compromise using two complementary mechanisms: first, by mandating states to embrace a state constitutional obligation to provide basic educational …

Co-Managers? The Need For Clarification Regarding State And Federal Powers In Federal Elections, Amber Mccomas

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This article argues that the Court needs to clarify the distinction between the state and federal government’s roles in federal elections to avoid chaos and unconstitutional overreach. As a part of this clarification, the Court should also clarify how information is deemed “necessary.” This article looks specifically at one potential consideration: public fears regarding election security. Data and logic indicate that such fears should not be a consideration in the necessity determination as they are unreliable. Section II examines the background of the Election Assistance Commission, the applicable law, as well as criticism and support the agency has received since …

Constitutional Confidentiality, Natalie Ram, Jorge L. Contreras, Laura M. Beskow, Leslie E. Wolf

Washington and Lee Law Review

Federal Certificates of Confidentiality (“Certificates”) protect sensitive information about human research subjects from disclosure and use in judicial, administrative, and legislative proceedings at both the state and federal levels. When they were first authorized by Congress in the 1970s, Certificates covered sensitive information collected in research about drug addiction use. Today, however, they extend to virtually all personal information gathered by biomedical research studies. The broad reach of Certificates, coupled with their power to override state subpoenas and warrants issued in the context of law enforcement, abortion regulation, and other police powers typically under state control, beg the question whether …

Interposition: A State-Based Constitutional Tool That Might Help Preserve American Democracy, Christian G. Fritz

Faculty Scholarship

Interposition was not a claim that state sovereignty could or should displace national authority, but a claim that American federalism needed to preserve some balance between state and national authority.

http://commonplace.online/article/interposition/

Limitation For Liberty, Riley Banker

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

This paper examines how the foundational principals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are under attack in our nation today and demonstrates why protecting them through Federalism is so important.

Monitoring American Federalism: The Overlooked Tool Of Sounding The Alarm Interposition, Christian G. Fritz

Faculty Scholarship

One key feature of the U.S. Constitution – the concept of federalism – was unclear when it was introduced, and that lack of clarity threatened the Constitution’s ratification by those who feared the new government would undermine state sovereignty. Proponents of the new governmental framework were questioned about the underlying theory of the Constitution as well as how it would operate in practice, and their explanations produced intense and extended debate over how to monitor federalism.

http://50shadesoffederalism.com/case-studies/monitoring-american-federalism-the-overlooked-tool-of-sounding-the-alarm-interposition/#more-1574

Is History Repeating Itself? The Role Of The Supreme Court In Protecting Minority Rights, Alyssa Fox, Annabelle Crawford

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

Throughout history, the role of the Supreme Court has been debated. Some individuals argue for strict interpretation of the Constitution, while others argue that the ideals of the Constitution should be prioritized. Landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court demonstrate the shift between the protection of state sovereignty and minority rights. This article argues that the Supreme Court is responsible to intervene on behalf of minority and historically-disadvantaged groups when their rights are threatened or infringed upon by state and federal governments.

Is Corporate Law Nonpartisan?, Ofer Eldar, Gabriel Rauterberg

Faculty Scholarship

Only rarely does the United States Supreme Court hear a case with fundamental implications for corporate law. In Carney v. Adams, however, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address whether the State of Delaware’s requirement of partisan balance for its judiciary violates the First Amendment. Although the Court disposed of the case on other grounds, Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that the issue “will likely be raised again.” The stakes are high because most large businesses are incorporated in Delaware and thus are governed by its corporate law. Former Delaware governors and chief justices lined up to defend the state’s …

Abortion Rights And Federalism: Some Lessons From The Nineteenth Century United States, Kate Masur

ConLawNOW

The Dobbs decision, which gives states complete control over abortion laws, has unleashed conflicts that resemble the battles that arose when enslaved people fled slave states for free states, and enslavers, in turn, mobilized state and federal power to get them back. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has prompted frequent allusions to slavery and the antebellum United States. The history of those struggles reminds us of the corrosive impact of interstate conflict and of the importance of federal protections for freedom and individual rights. The history of the United States in the nineteenth century …

A Prophylactic Approach To Compact Constitutionality, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

From COVID-19 to climate change, immigration to health insurance, firearms control to electoral reform: state politicians have sought to address all these hot-button issues by joining forces with other states. The U.S. Constitution, however, forbids states to “enter into any Agreement or Compact” with each other “without the Consent of Congress,” a requirement that proponents of much interstate action, especially around controversial topics, would hope to circumvent.

The Supreme Court lets them do just that. By interpreting “any Agreement or Compact” so narrowly that it is difficult to see what besides otherwise unlawful coordination qualifies, the Court has essentially read …