1.4 Contemporary Issues in American Federalism

American federalism faces ongoing challenges balancing power between federal and state governments. Debates over centralization, unfunded mandates, and preemption highlight tensions in the system. Recent Supreme Court decisions have reshaped federalism, impacting healthcare, voting rights, and sports betting.

These challenges reflect the dynamic nature of American federalism. As society evolves, so does the interpretation of federal-state relations, with courts and policymakers continually negotiating the boundaries of governmental authority and responsibility in addressing complex national issues.

Current Challenges and Debates in American Federalism

Challenges in American federalism

Top images from around the web for Challenges in American federalism

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Challenges in American federalism

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Centralization vs. decentralization
  • Debate over the appropriate level of power held by the federal government compared to state and local governments
  • Proponents of centralization argue for a stronger federal role in addressing national issues (healthcare, environmental protection) and ensuring uniformity across states
  • Advocates of decentralization emphasize the importance of state and local autonomy in addressing regional needs (education, infrastructure) and fostering policy innovation
• Dual federalism vs. cooperative federalism
  • Dual federalism maintains a clear separation of powers between federal and state governments, with each level having distinct responsibilities
  • Cooperative federalism involves collaboration and shared responsibilities between federal and state governments, often through grants (Medicaid) and joint programs (transportation projects)
• Evolving interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment
  • Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, which has been broadly interpreted to expand federal authority over issues like civil rights and environmental regulation
  • Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, serving as a basis for arguments in favor of state sovereignty and limiting federal power

Impact of unfunded mandates

• Unfunded mandates are federal requirements imposed on state and local governments without providing adequate funding to implement them
  • Examples include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
  • Unfunded mandates strain state and local budgets, potentially leading to reduced services or increased taxes to cover the costs of compliance
• Federal grants also influence state and local policy priorities
  • Categorical grants provide funds for specific purposes (Medicaid, transportation) and are subject to strict federal oversight and conditions
  • Block grants allocate funds for broader purposes (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Community Development Block Grants), giving states more flexibility in how they are used
  • Federal grants can incentivize states to adopt policies aligned with federal goals, but dependence on federal funding may limit state and local autonomy in decision-making

Preemption and Recent Supreme Court Decisions

Role of preemption

• Preemption doctrine holds that federal law supersedes conflicting state laws, as established by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution
• Types of preemption include:
  1. Express preemption, where federal law explicitly states its intent to preempt state law
  2. Implied preemption, where federal law is deemed to preempt state law due to conflicts or the comprehensive nature of the federal regulation
     • Field preemption occurs when federal law is so comprehensive that it occupies the entire field, leaving no room for state regulation
     • Conflict preemption arises when state law directly conflicts with federal law, making compliance with both impossible
• Debates over the scope and application of preemption involve balancing the need for national uniformity with the desire for state experimentation and local control, as well as concerns about federal overreach and the erosion of state authority

Supreme Court and federalism

• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
  • Upheld the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under Congress's taxing power
  • Ruled that the Medicaid expansion provision was unconstitutionally coercive, making it optional for states to participate
• Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
  • Struck down the coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act, effectively ending the preclearance requirement for certain states and localities with a history of discrimination
  • Shifted the balance of power in election regulation from the federal government to the states
• Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018)
  • Struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibited states from legalizing sports betting
  • Reaffirmed the anti-commandeering doctrine, prohibiting the federal government from compelling states to enforce federal laws
• These decisions have shaped the interpretation of federalism, affecting the scope of federal authority and the autonomy of state governments in various policy areas
  • The court's rulings have both expanded (ACA individual mandate) and constrained (anti-commandeering doctrine) federal power, depending on the specific case and constitutional provisions at issue