Federalism and the Roberts Court

• Autores: David E. Birenbaum
• Localización: Revista catalana de dret públic, ISSN 1885-5709, ISSN-e 1885-8252, Nº. 48, 2014, págs. 65-82
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto Completo Ejemplar
• Resumen

  • This article examines four decisions of the US Supreme Court rendered in the period 2011-2013 under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts relating to the issue of US federalism. While it is too soon to offer a definitive appraisal of the Court�s federalism jurisprudence, these decisions suggest that the Court will continue, if not deepen, the narrowing construction of federal power favoured by its predecessor, the Rehnquist Court. Indeed, it seems fair to say that the Roberts Court is developing a federalism jurisprudence which seeks not only to limit federal power but to protect the �dignity� of the states as dual sovereigns with the federal government.

    The four cases considered are: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius, which upheld most of President Obama�s health care legislation (but not under the broad power of the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses of the Constitution); Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because Congress could not, unless justified by current conditions, impose on some states (which had a history of discrimination in voting) burdens not borne by others;, United States v. Windsor, which ruled Congress could not define marriage to exclude same sex marriages regardless of state law; and Arizona v. United States, which held that the strict Arizona immigration statute was preempted by federal law because the state �may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.�

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Akhail Reed Amar, The Lawfulness of Section 5 – and Thus of Section 5, 126 Harv. L. Rev. F. 109, 114 (2013).
  • Courtney G. Joslin, Windsor, Federalism, and Family Equality, 113 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 156 (Oct. 14, 2013);
  • Ernest A. Young & Erin C. Blondel, Federalism. Liberty, and Equality in United States v. Windsor, 2012-2013 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 117, 119...
  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Assessing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1331 (2008);
  • Francita Tolson, Reinventing Sovereignty:? Federalism as a Constraint on the Voting Rights Act, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 1195, 1236 (2012)
  • Gilda R. Daniels, Unfinished Business: Protecting Voting Rights in the Twenty-First Century, 81 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1928, 1945 (2013)
  • Gonzalez v. Raitch, 545 U.S. 1, 37 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Note that Justice Scalia did not apply this test in National Federation...
  • Ilya Shapiro, Shelby County and the Vindication of Martin Luther King’s Dream, 8 N.Y.U. J. L. & Liberty 182 (2013).
  • John F. Manning, Federalism And The Generality Problem In Constitutional Interpretation, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 2003, 206263 (2009).
  • John Paul Stevens, The Court & the Right to Vote: A Dissent, N.Y. Rev. of Books, Aug. 15, 2013.
  • Justice Ginsburg National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2611 (2012) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
  • Kathleen M. Sullivan and Noah Feldman, Constitutional Law, 144 (18th ed. 2013).
  • NAMUDO’s Non-Existent Principle of State Equality, Zachary S. Price [t]he N.Y.U. L. Rev. Online 24 (2013).
  • National Federation of Independent Business, 132 S. Ct. at 2609.
  • Reva B. Siegel, Foreword: Equality Divided, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 71 (2013);
  • Richard A. Posner, Supreme Court 2013: The Year in Review, Slate.com, June 26, 2013.
  • Samuel Issacharoff, Beyond the Discrimination Model on Voting, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 95, 100 (2013)
  • Spencer Overton Voting Rights Disclosure: Responding to Samuel Issacharoff, Beyond the Discrimination Model on Voting, 129 Harvard L. Rev....
  • Sullivan and Feldman, Constitutional Law, 148 (18th ed. 2013).
  • Tolson, Reinventing Sovereignty, supra.