Federalism Flashcards
(8 cards)
Introduction
Federalism- enshrined in the US constitution as a division of authority between federal and state governments (amendment 10)- has long served to protect regional autonomy and prevent centralised dominance. Critics argue that recent expansions in federal power, through judicial interpretation, presidential authority and fiscal coercion, have eroded this delicate balance. However, closer inspection reveals a more complex landscape: federalism remains dynamic and robust, with courts reaffirming state rights, states resisting federal overreach and divergent policy innovation thriving. Ultimately, while the principle of federalism has faced stress, it has not been fatally compromised.
1: judicial and legislative centralisation vs doctrinal reaffirmation of state sovereignty
It could be argued that judicial and legislative developments have eroded federalism by expanding national control into traditional state domains.
In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court broadly interpreted the Commerce Clause to allow federal regulation of home-grown marijuana—even when it was legal under California state law—effectively overriding state policy in an area of public health and criminal justice. This ruling suggested that even non-commercial, intrastate activity could be federally regulated if it affected a broader economic scheme, drastically reducing states’ policy-making discretion.
Similarly, in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Court upheld the ACA’s individual mandate by recharacterising it as a tax, effectively legitimising unprecedented federal intrusion into healthcare, which had historically been state-administered.
Congress too has pursued uniform national standards through legislation such as No Child Left Behind and REAL ID Act, tying federal funds to state compliance with education and identification protocols—thereby coercing states into federal regulatory frameworks.
These examples reflect a pattern of doctrinal and statutory expansion that reshapes federalism as a tool of national uniformity rather than state experimentation.
1: judicial and legislative centralisation v doctrinal reaffirmation of state sovereignty
However, a more convincing argument is that recent judicial rulings and legislative deference have reasserted the constitutional foundations of federalism.
In Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute prohibiting states from legalising sports betting, invoking the anti-commandeering doctrine and declaring that the federal government cannot compel state legislatures to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the Court overturned federal abortion protections by ruling that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion—returning full regulatory power to the states, some of which immediately banned the procedure while others expanded access.
This reallocation of power directly affirms the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty in moral and medical policymaking.
Moreover, Congress in the 2018 Farm Bill devolved regulatory authority over hemp production to the states, further evidencing bipartisan recognition of decentralisation.
While some fear inconsistency, these legal trends demonstrate not erosion but recalibration—restoring substantive federalism in contested areas of policy.
2: executive overreach and uniform mandates v structural checks and state assertiveness
It could be argued that the modern executive branch has eroded by bypassing Congress and issuing nationwide mandates that limit state discretion.
President Obama’s 2012 creation of DACA—an executive action granting quasi-legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children—circumvented legislative processes and pre-empted states’ roles in immigration enforcement and benefits eligibility.
President Biden’s 2021 attempt to impose a national vaccine-or-test mandate on private businesses via OSHA was another instance of top-down governance; it was challenged by multiple Republican-led states and struck down in NFIB v. OSHA (2022) for exceeding the agency’s statutory authority.
Similarly, President Trump’s 2017 executive order attempting to defund sanctuary cities—jurisdictions resisting ICE cooperation—was blocked in court as unconstitutional under the Spending Clause.
in 2022, the Biden administration’s use of Title IX guidance to extend protections for transgender students—including mandates on sports participation and restroom access—triggered lawsuits from over 20 states who claimed the guidance imposed cultural mandates on schools that violated local values and governance authority. These examples reflect how presidents increasingly employ regulatory agencies to enforce broad cultural or legal norms, often provoking state resistance and testing the limits of executive authority under the federal system.
These examples collectively illustrate how presidential unilateralism has increasingly imposed uniform federal standards on diverse states, undermining the constitutional premise of decentralised governance.
2: executive overreach and uniform mandates v structural checks and state assertiveness
However, a more convincing argument is that institutional checks and political resistance have preserved federalism, particularly in moments of crisis and polarisation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump’s refusal to issue national mandates resulted in radically different policies across states: California enforced prolonged lockdowns and mask mandates, while Florida quickly reopened under Governor DeSantis, asserting “medical sovereignty.”
This divergence, although controversial, exemplified operational federalism in real-time, allowing states to tailor policy to local conditions and ideologies.
In 2023, Biden v. Nebraska saw the Supreme Court strike down Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, ruling that executive branch agencies could not assume congressional power to forgive debt—a firm boundary against executive overreach. Moreover, Texas’s launch of Operation Lone Star in 2023 to enforce border control independently of federal agencies—and the ensuing legal conflicts—demonstrate how states continue to assert jurisdictional power over contentious domains.
In early 2025, the Trump administration revised the federal guidelines for Medicaid block grants, giving states broader autonomy to design eligibility criteria, benefit structures, and work requirements without facing federal penalties. States like Tennessee and Georgia welcomed the change, quickly implementing waivers that shifted away from federally mandated coverage standards toward cost-cutting, state-tailored programs. This marked a deliberate departure from Obama-era conditional funding, reinforcing federalism by decentralising healthcare decision-making and empowering states to govern public welfare systems according to local priorities.
These actions reflect a functioning, adversarial federal system where power remains contested—not erased.
3: fiscal federalism and policy uniformity v divergent state innovation
It could be argued that fiscal federalism has undermined state autonomy by using funding incentives and penalties to pressure compliance with federal norms.
Conditional grants tied to national standards in healthcare, education, and infrastructure often coerce states into implementing policies they may not otherwise adopt.
For example, the ACA’s Medicaid expansion initially threatened states with the loss of all Medicaid funding unless they complied, leading the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius to rule that the federal government had overstepped its authority.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 injected over $787 billion into the U.S. economy, with a large portion distributed to states through conditional grants tied to federal priorities in education, healthcare, and infrastructure. While it provided essential relief during the Great Recession, it also pressured states to adopt federally favoured policies—such as expanding Medicaid or meeting national education standards like Race to the Top—in exchange for funding. This use of financial inducements highlighted how federal aid can be a tool of soft coercion, subtly undermining state autonomy while formally respecting state choice.
In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act distributed over $1.2 trillion in federal funding but imposed compliance conditions related to equity, environmental standards, and reporting—thereby indirectly shaping state priorities.
Even in transportation, federal highway funds are often tied to compliance with national safety or emissions regulations. These arrangements blur the lines of federalism, as states grow increasingly dependent on federally conditioned money to operate core public services.
3: fiscal federalism and policy uniformity v divergent state innovation
However, a more convincing argument is that states continue to innovate, diverge and resist national pressures in meaningful and constitutionally protected ways.
Despite ACA incentives, 10 states—predominantly Republican-controlled—have consistently refused to expand Medicaid as of 2024, choosing fiscal conservatism over federal compliance, despite billions in foregone funding.
In education, states like Florida and Virginia have enacted legislation diverging from federal guidelines on curriculum, with policies restricting the teaching of critical race theory and setting state-specific standards on gender education.
In 2017, the Trump administration ended the Obama-era Clean Power Plan and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, shifting regulatory authority over emissions standards back to the states. This move allowed states to set their own carbon reduction targets for power plants, rather than comply with federal mandates, significantly increasing state discretion over environmental policy. The rollback was framed as a restoration of “cooperative federalism,” illustrating how federal retrenchment can reinforce state control over critical sectors like energy and climate.
On environmental policy, California’s use of its Clean Air Act waiver to impose more stringent vehicle emissions standards than federal regulations has spurred legal conflict but also forced national manufacturers to comply with higher standards, effectively reversing federal supremacy.
These examples show that while federal money can influence, it does not dictate, and states retain strategic and constitutional agency. Rather than erosion, this is evidence of a pluralist and negotiable federalism—flexible enough to evolve without collapsing.
Conclusion
Although national government power has expanded in some domains through judicial interpretation, executive action and conditional funding, the core principle of federalism remains intact and functional. Courts continue to uphold state sovereignty, states actively defy and shape national policy and constitutional doctrines like anti-commandeering remain protected. Federalism has not been eroded beyond recognition- it has evolved, contested and adapted to complex political landscape. In an era of polarisation, its resilience is not a relic but a testimony to the strength of America’s constitutional design
