Studied by 7 people
federalism
division of power between national and state governments
10th amendment
the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution no prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
the states retain a general “police power“ to look after the economic, social, & moral welfare of its citizens
Justice Brandeis- why are states often referred to as “laboratories of democracy“
different states may have diff rules acting
states can try novel social economic experiences w/out risk to the rest of the country
federal supremacy → doc support
art 1 sec 10: “no state shall enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation, coin money, lay and duties on imports or exports“
Supremacy Clause (art 6): the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land
13th amendment
no more slavery or involuntary servitude
14th amendment
no state shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US / deprive any person of life, liberty, or property w/out due process / or deny any person w/in its jurisdiction the = protection in law
15th amendment
the right citizen to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
the civil war amendments are examples of
the federal government taking parts of the states’ ability to police themselves to ensure equality or a movement towards it
what are some benefits of shifting power to the states in current polarized political climates
all state governments to better respond to their constituent’s needs
states have an easier time passing more partisan legislation, finding little need to compromise w/ the opposite party
Greater consistency in political representation
in the last century no party has held more than 12 years straight of the presidency
back and forth means that both administrative works are quickly undone
in states same parties represent for 10-20 yrs
longevity allows citizens to have consistent political expectations for their state governments
what are some weaknesses of shifting power to the states in current polarized political climates
Has allowed states to infringe on certain group’s rights
civil rights had to guaranteed by the feds
but this not a fixed solution as fed parties switch they undo the work for the last president
what role are state attorneys playing in the federalism debate
they are now filling lawsuits against the fed gov at the highest rate in history, reflecting a broader movement by the larger political parties towards increased state power and resistance to central authority
When Democrats controlled the Executive
Republic State Attorney Generals Sued
NFIB v Sebelius (the affordable care act)
When Republicans controlled the Executive
Democrat state AG sued
Trump v Hawaii (trumps immigration policy ban)
how does the Constitution impose federalism-based limitations on Congress’ powers
External / Explicit restraints
congress may legislate only where the constitution expressly grants it power (art 1 sec 8 enumerated powers)
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
the constitution gives congress the implied power to create a national bank through the collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, “necessary and proper“ to carry out congress’ enumerated powers
how does the Constitution impose federalism-based limitations on Congress’ powers
internal / Implicit restraints
even when Congress legislates pursuant to an enumerated power, the text or structure of the Constitution may still prohibit it from acting
anti-commandering
anti-coercion
equal sovereignty
anti commandeering
congress may not commandeer states by forcing a state executive or state legislature to implement a particular federal policy
New York v United States (1992)
Printz v United States (1997)
Murphy v NCAA (2018)
anti-coercion
Congress may not attach conditions to the receipt of federal funding when “financial inducement“ offered by such funding is so coercive as to pass the point pressure turns into compulsion
NFIB v Sebelius (2012)
equal sovereignty
Shelby County v Holder (2014)
congress can violate states equal sovereignty by treating them differently (subjecting them unequal regulatory burdens)
did the Warren Court generally uphold or strike down state laws that it viewed as inconsistent w/ the bill of rights
strike down
aimed at limiting the state’s police powers
why are states resource poor in their relationship to the federal government
the Constitution bars them from minting their own money and prohibit themselves from ending the fiscal year in the red, meaning they need federal assistance
New York v US (1992) 6-3
facts
congress addressed the problem of radioactive waste by requiring states to either regulate or “take title“ (meaning take responsibility of the waste)
New York v US (1992)
issue
does the constitution allow congress to force state legislatures to pass laws to either regulate or purchase radioactive waste sites
New York v US (1992)
holding
no, even though Congress has power under the commerce clause (enumerated power) to regulate radioactive waste,
congress may not commandeer state legislatures to enact and enforce a regulatory program
violates the tenth amendment (powers not given to the feds are reserved to the state)
Applies to the State Legislatures
New York v US (1992)
O’Connor v Stevens
connor=states, writes the courts opinion, (originalist)
stevens-fed (pragmatist)
how the Rehnquist Court used the concept of federalism to limit congressional power in NY v US
the constitution gives Congress the power to regulate individuals not states, forcing states to pass legislation invades state sovereign and the 10th amendment
very strict reading of an original document
Printz v US (1997)
background, what caused the Brady Handgun Violence Act
Pres Regan’s press secretary Brady is shot, he becomes disabled and is now in a wheelchair → Act
Brady Handgun Violence Act
creates national database that is in the process on being made
Printz v US (1997) 5-4
facts
two state sheriffs challenged the Brady Handgun Violence Act’s requirement that local officials perform fed background checks on prospective gun purchasers while the database is under construction
Printz v US (1997)
issue
does the Constitution allow congress to force state law enforcement officers to perform federal background checks
Printz v US (1997)
holding
NO
the federal government may not commandeer state or local law enforcement officers to administer a federal regulatory scheme
even if Congress has the authority under the commerce clause to regulate in this area
Applies to the State Executive Officers
Printz v US (1997)
Scalia v Stevens
Scalia= Printz, wrote court opinion (originalist), goes against the way the government is set up
Stevens= US (pragmatist) believes congress can require what is necessary and proper, the clause should be used to extent their power not take away from it
how the Rehnquist Court used the concept of federalism to limit congressional power in Printz v US
very strict reading of an original document
Murphy v NCAA (2018)
background
Profession and Amateur Sport Protection Act (PAPSA) (1992): made it unlawful for states to authorize in law sports gambling
New Jersey in 2014, wants to make sports gambling legal in certain contexts
NCAA (national collegiate athletic association) sues bc they are saying that New Jersey’s new laws are in violation
Murphy v NCAA (2018)
holding
Congress can not prohibit NJ from passing a law legalizing sports gambling
they unequivocally dictated what a state legislature may or may not do, placing states in the direct control of Congress
applies to state legislatures
Murphy v NCAA (2018)
why does the anti-commandeering doctrine not limit federal power when congress evenly regulates an activity in which states and private actors engage
when the feds make a federal statue it limits the rights on private individuals, it is assumed that state laws will then follow this statue
the PASPA law did not use a federal statue to sports gambling so it can only be interpreted as a direct command to the states
does the anti-commandeering doctrine prohibit congress from requiring states courts to enforce federal causes of action
Yes, it blocks requiring
Congress still has the power to encourage states and localities to adopt or enforce federal polices by paying them pursuant of the Spending Clause
Spending Clause
Congress exercise of its spending power must be in pursuit of the general welfare
states need to be made aware of of any conditions attached to federal grants
NFIB v Sebelius (2018)
the first time a federal stature crossed the line separating permissible pressure to impermissible coercion
the ACA does not govern new funds but threatens to get rid of existing significant independent grants
puts a gun to the head of the states with no other option other than to follow the Medicaid expansion
NFIB v Sebelius (2018)
who wrote the opinion that invalidates part of the ACA that allowed the feral government to w/hold all Medicaid grants from states which refused to join
who joined him
Chief Roberts
Breyer and Kagan
Shelby County v Holder (2013)
background
Voting Rights Act 1965
created a coverage formula identifying jurisdiction w/ history of voter discrimination
those jurisdiction need to get federal court of Department Justice approval to change their voting procedures
this ensured that there was not denying or abridging of someone’s rights
Shelby County v Holder
What Shelby is claiming
since racial discrimination became less prevalent since 1975, there was no longer a constitutionally sufficient basis for treating certain states less favorably that others
Shelby County v Holder
holding 5-4
Yes the burdens Sec 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 no longer responsive to the current conditions in the voting districts in question
the burden was legal in the 60s and 70s but today is no longer necessary
Note 
Flashcard (22)