Federalism and Court Power: From Dual Federalism to New Federalism
Dual Federalism and the Layer Cake Analogy
Layer cake federalism vs. marble cake federalism as metaphors for how power is distributed between national and state governments.
Layer cake (dual federalism): the layers are distinct and do not interact; boundaries are clear; national government does not pass policies that interfere with states, and states do not pass policies interfering with national authority.
Marble cake (cooperative federalism): the flavors are blended; boundaries are blurred; national and state governments work together on policy.
The course uses these analogies to examine how courts define the scope of national vs. state power across history.
Early Foundations: Dual Federalism and Key Supreme Court Cases
Objective of early cases: determine what national power is; what state power is; especially regarding economic regulation.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): implied powers reaffirmed
Question: Can the national government create a national bank?
Maryland argued no because the bank is not specifically listed in the Constitution.
The Court upheld the national bank, establishing that Congress has implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause and that a national bank is a useful instrument to carry out taxing, spending, and monetary powers.
Implication: broadens national power beyond enumerated powers.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): interstate commerce vs. intrastate commerce
Issue: can a monopoly operate across state lines in New Jersey and New York?
Holding: Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce; intrastate commerce is a state matter.
Clarifies that activities crossing state lines fall under national authority; internal, within-state activities fall under state authority.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): states’ rights view on national regulation of slavery
Question: Can the national government regulate slavery in new territories/states?
Ruling: the national government cannot interfere with slavery in new territories; enslaved people were not citizens; national power to regulate slavery was limited in this era.
Outcome reinforced states’ rights arguments during this period.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886): corporate personhood
Court’s headnotes implied that corporations are “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment and can engage in political processes, own property, sue, etc.
This case helps lay groundwork for later recognition of corporate rights and their status as actors in the political and economic sphere.
Commerce Clause baseline
Constitutional text: \text{Commerce Clause: Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the states.}
This clause becomes a primary instrument for expanding national regulatory power over economic activity, including business and industry.
Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)
Federal effort to break up monopolies to preserve competition in the national economy and free market.
Illustrates federal reach into business practices and market regulation across state lines.
Hammer v. Daggett (Dagenhart) (1918): limits on federal regulation of child labor (intrastate production vs interstate shipment)
Federal law prohibited interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor (Keating-Owen Act, 1916).
Court struck down the law by emphasizing that production within a state is not interstate commerce, thus not within federal power to regulate.
Demonstrates the tension between national regulatory ambitions and the Court’s restraint on national reach into intrastate matters.
Timeline pattern (late 19th century to 1916): a trend toward decisions favorable to business and limited national regulation of intrastate activities.
The Great Depression and the judiciary’s shift
1929 stock market crash triggers a national-economic crisis.
President Herbert Hoover initially embraces laissez-faire tendencies; federal action is limited.
The electorate shifts toward a belief that the economy is a national issue requiring federal intervention.
The New Deal Era: From Court Opposition to Court Support for National Power
Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) and economic reform
The Great Depression reframes economic policy as a national issue requiring federal action.
FDR launches programs under the New Deal to restore the economy and provide relief, reviving federal power to regulate the economy.
Tension with the Supreme Court
The Court had largely sided with pro-business, limited-national-regulation positions prior to the 1930s.
FDR sought to align the Court with his policy goals by reshaping its composition, which sparked controversy and constitutional questions.
Court-packing plan (1937)
FDR proposed increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to obtain more favorable rulings for New Deal legislation.
The plan triggered the political and legal debate over judicial independence and the distribution of power between branches.
The idea is linked to the broader concept of the “switch in time that saved nine,” when a justice changed his stance, shifting the Court’s approach.
Twentieth Century constitutional reform and implications
The movement toward greater national economic regulation culminates in a shift of Court decisions toward support for national authority in economic matters.
The Court’s shift is framed as allowing the federal government to more readily regulate national economic activity, including business and labor practices.
Discussion prompt: hypothetical modern court-packing scenario
The lecturer introduces a prompt about what the Supreme Court would look like today if a modern court-packing plan were enacted, drawing a parallel to FDR’s plan.
Context includes references to contemporary debates about Court composition and legitimacy.
Twenty-First Century reference to court-packing discussions
The lecturer notes modern debates about attempting to alter the Court’s composition, citing a hypothetical scenario related to current presidents.
This is presented as a discussion prompt rather than a prediction of events.
The Federal-State-Local Partnership: Cooperative Federalism and Federal Grants
Cooperative federalism (examples)
Social Security and food assistance programs are framed as cooperative federalism initiatives.
Federal funding supports state-administered programs with guidelines and conditions, reflecting shared responsibility across levels of government.
Social Security (as an example)
A federally established program with state implementation and oversight features; illustrates federal-state collaboration.
Other cooperative programs
Various welfare and public works programs implemented with federal funding and state administration.
Interstate Relations: Full Faith and Credit; Privileges and Immunities; and State-to-State Interactions
Full Faith and Credit Clause
States must recognize and honor the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states.
Practical implication: when Texas issues a marriage license, other states recognize it; similarly, out-of-state judgments and legal statuses are generally respected.
Privilleges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution (context)
States cannot discriminate against citizens of other states with respect to fundamental rights or important economic activities, subject to certain exceptions.
United States travel analogy: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”
In practice, residents must comply with the laws of the state they are in, even if those laws differ from their home state.
Example discussions around age restrictions, licensing, and other activities illustrate the interaction of state laws across borders.
Privileges and Immunities and non-residents
Individuals traveling or relocating are subject to the host state’s laws and regulatory regime, illustrating how residency and location affect rights and obligations.
Interplay of State and Local Government: Devolution and New Federalism
Devolution (from the party philosophy of the 1980s–1990s)
A shift toward returning power to states and reducing federal involvement after the New Deal expansion.
New Federalism
Emphasizes giving more power and discretion to states, often via funding mechanisms with fewer strings attached compared to earlier categorical grants.
Block grants vs. categorical grants
Block grants: broad allocations that allow local entities to decide how to spend funds (e.g., a hypothetical $2,000,000 grant for Dallas College; flexibility to allocate as desired, e.g., professional development or other needs).
Categorical grants: targeted funds for specific purposes with more federal strings and reporting requirements (e.g., $100,000 for computers; non-reallocatable funds if not spent on the specified category).
Trade-offs: block grants increase local flexibility but reduce federal control; categorical grants increase federal influence and accountability but can constrain local priorities.
Local government structure (brief introduction)
Cities operate as municipal corporations with charters.
General Law City vs. Home Rule City: constitutional and statutory frameworks defining how cities are formed and governed; home rule provides more local autonomy than general-law status.
Practical Takeaways and Connections
The evolution from dual to cooperative to new federalism reflects a dynamic power balance between national and state governments across economic, social, and regulatory domains.
Cases and amendments serve as milestones illustrating how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federalism shifts in response to economic change, social needs, and political pressures.
The Commerce Clause remains a central tool for expanding the federal government’s reach into economic regulation, including corporate persons and antitrust concerns, while the Tenth Amendment and states’ rights perspectives provide ongoing checks and tensions.
Functional implications for policy design:
When designing nationwide programs, expect federal-state collaboration and potential conditions tied to funding.
Consider the level of local control favored by block grants vs. the targeting and accountability of categorical grants.
In modern contexts, court composition and judicial philosophy can meaningfully influence the scope of federal power.
Key Dates and Concepts (Quick Reference)
1819: McCulloch v. Maryland establishes implied powers and a broad interpretation of federal authority.
1824: Gibbons v. Ogden clarifies interstate vs. intrastate commerce and federal regulatory power.
1857: Dred Scott v. Sanford underscores limits on national intervention in state-defined social issues (slavery) of that era.
1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific establishes corporate personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment.
1890: Sherman Antitrust Act strengthens federal regulation of monopolies and interstate commerce.
1916: Keating-Owen Act restricts child labor; federal attempt to regulate production via interstate commerce.
1918: Hammer v. Daggett (Dagenhart) invalidates federal child-labor regulation as beyond the scope of interstate commerce.
1929: Stock market crash and onset of the Great Depression; shift toward national economic intervention.
1933: FDR’s New Deal; expansion of federal authority to address national economic crisis; the Twentieth Amendment also moves toward changing the presidential and congressional terms in later years.
1937: Court-packing debate and the “switch in time that saved nine,” signaling a shift toward national regulation of the economy.
1960s–1980s: Devolution and the rise of New Federalism with block grants and reduced emphasis on categorical grants; gradual rebalancing of federal-state power in some policy areas.