Resumen de Federalism and the Roberts Court

David E. Birenbaum

• 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.�