Supreme Court Decisions and the Evolution of Federalism

The Crucial Role of Supreme Court Decisions in Federalism

• Landmark Supreme Court decisions serve as the primary engine for the evolution of federalism within the United States, establishing frameworks for the distribution of power between federal and state governments.
• Legal Precedent: These decisions establish binding legal precedents that guide future court rulings and the interpretation of the Constitution.
• Interpretation of Law: The Court is responsible for defining how laws and the US Constitution are applied in practice, often clarifying ambiguous language.
• Pseudo Laws: In the absence of federal legislation regulating specific social behaviors or interactions, Supreme Court decisions functions as "pseudo laws" to fill the legal void.
  • While only the legislature can pass formal laws, these judicial decisions provide a regulatory framework that governs society until a formal law is enacted or the decision is overturned.
  • Example: Roe v. Wade served as the sole federal regulation for abortion for decades. Since its repeal, the regulation of abortion has reverted exclusively to the states, which can regulate the practice provided they do not violate individual rights or liberties outlined in the Constitution.
• Conflict Resolution and Civil Rights: Decisions resolve disputes between state and federal powers and can protect or, in some historical instances, violate civil rights.
• The Persistence of Legislative Violations: From a political science perspective, the Supreme Court has historically allowed congressional acts to stand even when they appeared to violate the Bill of Rights.
  • Example: The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Though the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, the Sedition Act restricted political freedom by making it a crime to criticize the government and limited the right to assemble.
• Evolution of the Bench: The Supreme Court is not a static institution; as justices change, so do the interpretations of past precedents and the Constitution based on their views of judicial duty toward society.

Historical Theories of State Rights and Resistance

• Vertical Federalism: This refers to the hierarchical relationship between the federal government and the state governments.
• Nullification Theory: Emerged in $1798$ through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and was revived in $1832$ by South Carolina in opposition to federal tariffs.
  • Definition: The theory asserts that states have the power to invalidate federal laws they deem unconstitutional.
  • Context: It was born in a pre-Civil War political environment. Post-Civil War, the Republican Party established that the Union cannot be dissolved, moving away from the impression of a "confederate union."
  • The Compact Theory: Nullification relies on the premise that the Constitution is a "compact" among sovereign states, granting each state the right to interpret the document independently.
  • Veto Power: Nullification claims not just autonomy but a de facto veto power over federal law, representing a remnant of the political thinking of the "First Republic" under the Articles of Confederation.
• Dual Federalism (Layer Cake Federalism): Predominant from the late $18^{th}$ Century until $1937$.
  • This model views national and state governments as two contending sovereign powers operating in separate spheres with limited overlap.
  • The Tenth Amendment: Provides the legal structure for states to claim reserved powers in areas such as education and public safety.
  • It serves as the philosophical foundation for resisting federal mandates on social or racial issues.

The Southern Manifesto and Political Realignment

• The Southern Manifesto of 1956: A formal document signed by $101,000$ members of Congress (as per transcript nomenclature) in opposition to the $1954$ Brown v. Board of Education decision.
  • Argument: Signatories claimed the desegregation order was an abuse of judicial power and urged states to resist federal intrusion.
  • Significance: It was a modern articulation of nullification and dual federalism used to frame segregation as a matter of state sovereignty rather than federal jurisdiction.
• Arkansas and Little Rock: A concrete example of this resistance occurred when the Governor of Arkansas refused to desegregate schools until President Eisenhower deployed federal troops to force compliance.
• The Realignment of Political Parties: The struggle over civil rights led to a major shift in the American party system from the $1960s$ through the $1980s$.
  • Southern Democrats: Religious, social, and racial conservatives who became disillusioned with the Democratic Party (which became the party of the New Deal, welfare, desegregation, and civil rights under Kennedy and Johnson) began moving to the Republican Party.
  • Evolution of the Republican Party: Founded in the $1860s$ as a progressive, anti-slavery party; transitioned in the late $1800s$ to represent corporate and fiscal interests; and shifted again in the mid-$20^{th}$ Century to absorb socially conservative Southern Democrats.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Establishing Judicial Authority

• Marbury v. Madison ($1803$):
  • Background: Marbury was appointed Justice of the Peace, but his commission was not delivered. He petitioned for a "writ of mandamus" (a court order) to compel Secretary of State Madison to deliver it.
  • Decision: The Court acknowledged Marbury's right to the commission but struck down the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional for attempting to expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
  • Landmark Status: Established the principle of Judicial Review, granting the Court the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
• Fletcher v. Peck ($1810$):
  • Background: Georgia sold land (Yazoo Lands) to companies; the land was eventually sold to Peck, then to Fletcher. Georgia later repealed the law allowing the original sale due to corruption.
  • Decision: The Court ruled the repeal was unconstitutional because the original land grant was a contract protected by the Contract Clause of the Constitution.
  • Landmark Status: Extended the power of judicial review to state laws, asserting that states cannot pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Federal Supremacy and the Commerce Clause

• McCulloch v. Maryland ($1819$):
  • Background: Maryland attempted to tax the Second Bank of the United States. McCullough, representing the federal bank, refused to pay.
  • Decision: The Court ruled that Congress has the power to charter a bank and that states cannot tax federal entities.
  • Implied Powers: Affirmed the Necessary and Proper Clause (Clause $18$), stating the federal government has powers beyond those explicitly expressed if they are needed to execute expressed powers (e.g., managing the "power of the purse").
  • Federal Supremacy: Reinforced the Supremacy Clause, asserting the federal government is supreme over state governments.
• Gibbons v. Ogden ($1824$):
  • Background: A dispute over steamboat monopolies in New York waters between Ogden (state license) and Gibbons (federal license).
  • Decision: The Court ruled that the Commerce Clause grants Congress authority over all commercial intercourse between states, including navigation.
  • Difference in Spheres: Clarified the distinction between interstate (between states) and intrastate (within a single state).
• South Dakota v. Dole ($1987$):
  • Background: Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to withhold $5\%$ of federal highway funds from states that did not raise the drinking age to $21$. South Dakota (which allowed $19$-year-olds to buy beer) challenged this.
  • Decision: The Court ruled the federal government can attach conditions to federal grants to influence state policy, provided the conditions promote general welfare and are not "extreme" or punitive.

Modern Contradictions and Limitations on Federal Power

• US v. Lopez ($1995$):
  • Background: Lopez was arrested for carrying a handgun into a school zone, violating the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
  • Decision: The Court sided with Lopez, ruling that carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.
  • Significance: Marked the first major limitation on the Commerce Clause since the New Deal, shifting the Court toward a more constrained view of federal power.
• Gonzales v. Raich ($2005$):
  • Background: California legalized medical marijuana, but federal agents seized homegrown marijuana from Monson and Raich.
  • Decision: The Court ruled that Congress can regulate noncommercial, intrastate activity (like growing medical marijuana for personal use) if it has a cumulative effect on a federal market regulation.
  • Precedent: The Court cited Wickard v. Filburn ($1942$), which allowed regulation of personal wheat growth.
  • Outcome: Successfully demonstrated the ongoing tension and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, returning to an expansion of federal authority compared to Lopez.