Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:54:32.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Janus-Faced Federalism: State Sovereignty and Federal Preemption in the Rehnquist Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2005

Timothy J. Conlan  and
Robert L. Dudley
Timothy J. Conlan
Affiliation:
George Mason University
Robert L. Dudley
Affiliation:
George Mason University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Roman god Janus had two faces, looking in opposite directions. This split appearance is an apt metaphor for the Rehnquist Court's decisions involving federal-state relations. One face, which has received much attention over the past decade and a half, is characterized by the Court's post-1990 decisions concerning state sovereignty, sovereign immunity, and the reach of Congress's powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment. All have had a devolutionary thrust, bolstering state authority or insulating state institutions against federal law and regulations. The second, less recognized face is distinguished by the Court's emerging doctrines concerning federal preemption of state and local authority. In these cases, the Supreme Court—often led by members of the new federalist majority—has tilted surprisingly in favor of federal authority. This article examines both faces of contemporary judicial policy making on matters of federalism, with a particular focus on the implications for federal preemption.

Type
SYMPOSIUM
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 363 - 366
Copyright
© 2005 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2004. “Empowering States When it Matters: A Different Approach to Preemption.” Brooklyn Law Review 69: 1313–333.Google Scholar
Conlan, Timothy J. 1986. “Federalism and Competing Values in the Reagan Administration.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 16: 29–47.Google Scholar
Corwin, Edward S. 1950. “The Passing of Dual Federalism.” Virginia Law Review 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Mary J. 2002. “Unmasking the Presumption in Favor of Preemption.” South Carolina Law Review 53: 967–1030.Google Scholar
Gunther, Gerald, and Kathleen M. Sullivan. 1997. Constitutional Law, 11th Edition. Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Paul L. 1996. The Politics of Unfunded Mandates. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Staab, James B. 2003. “Conservative Activism on the Rehnquist Court: Federal Preemption is No Longer a Liberal Issue.” Roger Williams University Law Review 9: 129–185.Google Scholar
Young, Ernest A. 2004. “The Rehnquist Court's Two Federalisms.” Texas Law Review 8: 1–165.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Alden, et al., v. Maine. 527 U.S. 705, 713 (1999).Google Scholar
American Insurance Association v. Garamendi 539 U.S. 396 (2003).Google Scholar
Cipollone v. Liggett Group 505 U.S. 504 (1992).Google Scholar
City of Boerne v. Flores. 521 U.S. 507 (1997).Google Scholar
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999).Google Scholar
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council. 530 U.S. 363 (2000).Google Scholar
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 Google Scholar
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. 529 U.S. 861 (2000).Google Scholar
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991).Google Scholar
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly 533 U.S. 525 (2001).Google Scholar
Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368 (1987).Google Scholar
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003).Google Scholar
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).Google Scholar
Printz v. United States. 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).Google Scholar
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).Google Scholar
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, et al. 517 U.S. 44, 72 (1996).Google Scholar
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 551 (1995).Google Scholar
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 617–618 (2000).Google Scholar