Judicial Federalism: The Resurgence of the Supreme Court's Role in the Protection of State

Sovereignty
Author(s): Charles Wise
Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1998), pp. 95-98
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976355 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 01:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.105 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:14:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OyezOyez,HeidiKoenigEditor
NewYork v. United
States
505
U.S. 144(1992)

The heSupreme
of
Resurgence
Federalism:
Judicial
Justone year after Gregory, the
Supreme Courtannounced itsdecision in
response toa challenge fromtwocounties

Courts of Sovereignty
Stte
inheProtection
Role and theStateof New Yorkagainstthe
Low-Level Radioactive WastePolicyAct,
which,amongotherthings,mandated
thatstates orregional compacts thatfailto
providethe disposal of all low level
Charles Wise, Indiana Univsersity radioactive wastesgenerated in theaffect-
ed statesbyJanuary 1, 1996,musttake

T hroughout thecourts
history,
playeda keyrolein determining
have
ism
Nonetheless,
supporters
the
were
worst
not
fearsof federal-
realized. The
titletothewasteifrequested
ator or
stated
owner
that
of
this
the waste.
bythegener-

"take-title"
The Court
provision
thenature oftheintergovernmen- decadeof the 1990's has brought a shiftin offered the states a "choice" between two
talsystem intheUnitedStates. In particu- thetrend in federalism cases and brought unconstitutional alternatives. The first
lar,theFederal Courtshavebeenthecen- theSupreme Courtbackto takingup a choice,accepting ownership ofthewaste,
tralarbiterin deciding between assertions role as a protectorof federalism.To wouldallowCongress to transfer radioac-
of nationalauthority and stateclaimsto understand it is to
why, necessary scruti- tivewastefrom generators tostategovern-
protection fromfederalencroachment. nizea seriesof casesdecidedfromthe ments whichwasclearly unconstitutional.
The Courtshavebeen askedtimeand openingofthedecade.It beganinauspi- The secondchoice,regulating according
againto choosebetweenConstitutional ciouslyenoughwithan unobtrusive per- to Congress's instructions, wouldcom-
commands supporting thenationalgov- sonnelpolicycase, Gregory v. Ashcroft mandstategovernments to implement
ernment on theonehandandcommands (111 S. Ct.2395,1991).In thatcase,state legislation enacted byCongress.
supporting stateandlocalgovernments on judgeschallenged Missouri's constitution- The Courtemphasized thatCongress
theother.In thedecadesof the 1940's al requirement thatjudgesretire atage70. exercises itsconferred powerssubjectto
through the1980's,moreoftenthannot, CitingtheFederalDiscrimination and thelimitations contained in theConstitu-
thecourtsdecidedthetrade-offs in favor Employment Actof 1967and theFour- tionand opinedthatjustas Congress is
ofnational authority andthussignificant- teenth Amendment, Missourisupported constrained intheexercise ofitspowers by
ly supported theexpansionof national itsconstitutional regulation through the the First Amendment,so too is it
governmental power. TenthAmendment of theUnitedStates restrained bytheTenthAmendment. This
This trendin supportof theFederal Constitution, whichrerserves tothestates juxtaposition of theTenthAmendment
Government is important,in thatit has all powersnotexplicitly granted to the withtheFirstdemonstrates justhowseri-
playeda crucialrolein structuring our federal government. The Courtdecided ous theCourtis in emphasizing federal-
system ofgovernance, alteredoursystem forMissouri, butwhatwasmoresignifi- ism,in thattheCourthas alwaysbeen
ofpublicadministration, and constituted cantis thatin doingso, it wenton to particularlyvigilant in asserting itsrolein
fundamental constraintson theabilityof engagein a lengthy reviewofpastcases protecting FirstAmendment rights. The
stateandlocalofficials programs focusing
to direct on statepolitical functions, and Courtreminded us that"theConstitution
and operationsto meetthe expanded thenwentto extraordinary lengthsto protects us fromourownbestintentions:
domesticpolicyagendathathas been expound a generalviewofstatesovereign- It dividespoweramongsovereigns and
devolved to stateand localgovernments. ty. Notcontent to stopthere, theCourt amongbranches ofgovernment precisely
The trendin favorof nationalauthority wenton to equatetheimportance of a so thatwe mayresistthetemptation to
hadpersisted forso longthatsomecom- balanceofpower between stateandfederal concentrate powerin one locationas an
mentators concludedthatthefederalism governments withtheseparation ofpow- expedient solution tothecrisis oftheday."
principlehad outliveditsusefulness and erswithinthenationalgovernment and (505 U.S. 186).TheCourtconcluded,
was no longera viablejudicialdoctrine stated thatthisconstituted a "double secu- Statesarenotmerepolitical subdivi-
(Choper, 1980,pp.255-256).Federalism rity" forthepeople.The Supreme Court sionsoftheUnited States.Stategov-
supporters feared thattheSupreme Court hasfollowed Gregory witha seriesofdeci- ernments areneither regional offices
hadreached thesameconclusion andwas sionsbuttressing federalism. The cases noradministrative agenciesof the
formally signaling itsabdicationof any thatfollow illustratethenature andextent Federal Government.... The Consti-
responsibilitytoprotect stateprerogatives. oftheresurgence. tutioninstead'leavesto theseveral

Public
Administration
Review. March/April
1998,Vol.58,No.2 95

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.105 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:14:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Statesa residuaryand inviolable stantiallyaffect"interstatecommerce. The Seminole Tribe ofFlorida v.Florida,
sovereignty' (Federalistno. 39), Courtconcluded thatthepropertestwas 116S. Ct. 1114(1996)
reserved totheStates
explicitly bythe "substantiallyaffects"and that theGun
TenthAmendment. Whatever the FreeSchoolZonesActwouldhaveto meet Thisis a casethathasimportant impli-
outerlimitsofthatsovereignty may thattest. cations for federalism and has significance
be, one thingis clear:The Federal The Government arguedthattheAct forstateandlocalgovernments beyond the
Government maynotcompel Statesto metthetestbecausethecostsofcrimeare context of the case itself. It concerns
enactoradminister a federalregulato- substantialand throughinsuranceare whether Congress can override theStates'
ryprogram" (Ibid). spreadthroughout thepopulation, thatfear Eleventh Amendment immunity fromsuit
Thisconclusion clearly hasbroadimpli- ofcrimereduces thewillingness ofpeople by passing a statute to that effect. Such
cationsat a timewhenthefederal govern- totravel toareasperceived unsafe,andfinal- immunity is important, in that if it can be
mentlooksincreasingly at thestatesto lythatgunsinschools threatenthelearning abrogated by an act of Congress, states'
implementand administerprograms environment whichin turnwillleadto a powers to actively regulate aresignificantly
adopted byCongress. lessproductivecitizenry.TheCourtopined constrained by the threat of potential suits.
WhiletheCourtreaffirmed therewere thattheserationales wereseemingly without This case involved the Indian Gaming
incentivesthatCongresscould use to limitson federal power.The Courtcon- Regulatory Act,passedbyCongresspur-
encourage theStatesto chooseto partici- cluded, "ToupholdtheGovernment's con- suant to the IndianCommerceClause,
patein federal regulatory programs,it was tentions here,we wouldhaveto pileinfer- which allows an Indiantribeto conduct
emphaticthatclearlimitsbased in the ence upon inference in a mannerthat certain gaming activities onlyin confor-
Constitution wouldlimitCongress's reach. wouldbid fairto convertcongressional mance with a valid compact between the
authorityundertheCommerce Clauseto a tribeand the State in which the gaming
UnitedStatesv.Alfonso Lopez,Jr. generalpolicepower of the sortretainedby activities are located.The IndianCom-
theStates"(514 U.S. 567). The majority merce Clause, forthesepurposes, is indis-
514U.S.549(1995) tinguishable from the Interstate Commerce
admitted thattheCourt'spriordecisions
In thiscase,a twelfth gradestudent car- had takenlongstepsdownthatroadand clause,andthusthedecision appliesto the
rieda concealedhandgunintohis high suggestedthe possibilityof additional latteras well. Under the Act, theStates
schoolandwaslatercharged withviolating expansion, butstated"wedeclinehereto have a duty to negotiate in good faith with
thefederal GunFreeSchoolZonesActof proceed anyfurther" (514U.S. 567). the tribe toward the formation of a com-
1990. The Act forbids"anyindividual The significanceofthisruling is vastin pact,andthetribeis allowedtosuea State
knowingly to possessa firearm at a place thattheCommerce clausehasbeenthepri- in federal courtin orderto compelperfor-
that[he]knows...is a schoolzone." The marybasisforregulatory legislationpassed mance of thatduty.In thiscase,theState
student appealedhisconviction basedon byCongress inmultiple areas.Observers as moved to dismissthecomplainton the
hisclaimthatthelawexceeded Congress'sfarbackasJustice Frankfurter havepointed ground that thesuitviolatedthestate's
powerto legislateundertheCommerce out that the CommerceClause has sovereign immunity fromsuitin federal
Clause. throughout theCourt'shistory beenthe court under the Eleventh Amendment.
The Court reviewedits Commerce chiefsourceofitsadjudications regardingThe SeminoleTribecounteredthatthe
Clausedecisionsand observed thatwhile federalism. Asthedissenters pointed outin Supreme Courthadpreviously held,in the
itsdecisions in recent decadeshad greatly thiscase,morethan100 sectionsof the 1989 case of Pennsylvania v. UnionGas
expanded thepreviously defined authorityUnitedStatesCode includingcriminal (491 U.S. 1), thatCongress hasthepower
ofCongress undertheClause,eventhose statutes withat least25 sectionsuse the whenlegislating pursuant toArticle I ofthe
precedents confirm thatthispoweris sub- words"affecting commerce" to definetheir Constitution, to override States'Eleventh
jectto outerlimits(514 U.S. 556). The scope.The dissenters forecast thatlegal Amendment immunity fromsuitand did
Courtstatedthatit had identified three uncertainty theyperceiveintroduced by so inthiscase.
broadcategories ofactivity thatCongress thisdecisionwillrestrict Congress' ability The Supreme Courtreversed the1989
mayregulate underitscommerce power: to enactcriminal lawsaimedat criminal UnionGas decisionand held thatthe
(1) it mayregulate theuseofchannels of behavior thatseriously threatenseconomic Eleventh Amendment prevents Congress
interstatecommerce, (2) it mayregulate as wellas socialwell-being ofAmericans fromauthorizing suitsby Indiantribes
and protect theinstrumentalities ofinter- (514U.S. 630). against Statesto enforce legislation enacted
statecommerce, or personsor thingsin Whether therewillbegreater uncertain-pursuant to theIndianCommerce Clause.
interstate
commerce and(3) itmayregulate tyor not remainsto be seen.It is clear The Court foundthat UnionGas was
thoseactivitieshaving a substantialrelation however, thatthereis a majority on the wronglydecided, departedfromthe
to interstate commerce (514 U.S. 558). Courtreadyto subjectanycongressionalCourt's federalism jurisprudence, andover-
The Courtobservedthatwithinthelast attemptsat regulatory expansionto a ruled it. More importantly, the Court
category,itsprecedents hadnotmadeclear stricter scrutiny thantheyhaveexperienceddeclared thatevenwhentheConstitution
whether an activity must"affect" or "sub- intherecent past. vests in Congress completelaw-making

96 PublicAdministration
Review* March/April
1998,Vol.58,No. 2

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.105 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:14:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
authorityovera particular
area(suchasreg- States'officers,
or thoseof theirpolitical law. RFRAssweeping coverage, theCourt
ulationof interstate commerce), the to
subdivisions, administer or enforcea found, ensuresitsintrusionatevery levelof
Eleventh Amendment prevents congres-federalregulatoryprogram.Theprinciple is government, displacinglawsandprohibit-
sional
authorizationofsuitsbyprivatepar- categoricaland does notmatter whether ingofficial actionsofalmostevery descrip-
tiesagainstunconsentingstates.Thefinal policymakingis involved and no caseby tionand regardless ofsubjectmatter. The
resultis thatStatesovereign immunitycaseweighing ofcostsandbenefitsisneces- Courtconcluded thatRFRAwouldrequire
undertheEleventh Amendment takes sary. searchingjudicial scrutiny of statelaw
precedence overcongressional
power under inthelikely
resulting invalidation ofmany,
Article
I oftheConstitution.Theproject- and this is a considerable congressional
CityofBoerne v.PE Flores andUnit-
ed far-reachingimpact ofthisdecision is intrusionintotheStates' traditional
prerog-
edStates117 S. Ct.2157(1997)
predicted togiveStatesgreaterprotection ativesandgeneral authorityto regulate for
against authorized
congressionally suitsby The CatholicArchbishop ofSanAnto- thehealth andwelfare oftheir citizens.
private
partiesindiverseareas
oflaw. nioappliedfora building
permit toenlarge The Courtwas mostemphatic in dis-
a churchinBoerne, Texas.Thecityzoning cussing Congress' powers to legislate under
Printzv. UnitedStates117 S. Ct. authorities
pursuant to an historic
preserva- the rubric of the Fourteenth Amendment,
tionordinance deniedthepermit and the and madeit clearthatthe Courtitself
2365 (1997)
Archbishop brought suitundertheReli- wouldcontinueto determine limitson
ProvisionsoftheBrady Handgun Vio- giousFreedomRestoration Actof 1993 thosepowers according toitsownresponsi-
lencePrevention Actrequired theestablish-(RFRA). RFRAprohibits"government"bilityto interpret theConstitution andto
mentofa national system forinstantlyfrom"substantially burdening" a person's say"whatthelawis."
checking prospective handgun purchasers' exerciseof religionevenif the burden Some features of theabovereviewed
backgrounds andcommanded thechieflaw resultsfroma ruleofgeneral applicabilitycases,takenas a whole,imply broadsignifi-
enforcement officerofeachlocaljurisdic-unlessthegovernment candemonstrate the cancefortheresurgence of federalism on
tionto conductbackground checkson burden(1) is in furtherance of a com- thepartof theSupremeCourt.First,it
prospectivepurchasers. TwoCounty sher- pelling
governmental and(2) isthe shouldbe notedthatthesearenotnarrow
interest;
iffschallengedthisprovisionasunconstitu- leastrestrictivemeansof furthering that fact-bound decisionsnoroneswithprece-
tional. interest.The issuebeforetheSupreme dentsoflimited applicability.
Norarethey
TheCourtagreed withtheSheriffs and Courtwas whetherin enactingRFRA, directed solelyat specializedor segmented
stated,"Itis an essentialattribute ofthe Congresshad exceededits enforcementareasof statutory law. Instead,theyare
States'retainedsovereignty thatthey powerundertheFourteenth Amendment.directed atwhathaveserved as someofthe
remainindependent and autonomousThis case is significant forfederalism in foundationstonesof the expansionof
within theirproper sphereofauthority...It thattheFourteenth Amendment perhaps national power. Casesreviewed hereinvolve
is nomorecompatible withthisindepen-evenmorethantheCommerce clausehas theCommerce ClauseandtheFourteenth
denceandautonomy thattheirofficers
be beenthebasisforextending thereachof Amendment, and themajorities in these
'dragooned'... intoadministering federalnationalpolicy,and Congresshas passed caseshavetakenparticular painsto point
law,thanitwouldbecompatible withthe numerous lawspursuant toitsenforcement outtheneedforlimitson national power
independence andautonomy oftheUnited powerundertheAmendment. undertheserubrics, and thenhavepro-
Statesthatitsofficersbeimpressed intoser- The CourtfoundthatCongress's power ceededto setsuchlimits. In doingso,they
vicefortheexecution ofstatelaws" (117S. extends onlyto "enforcing" theFourteenthhavebyno meansindicated thatthelimit
Ct. 2386).Thefederal government had Amendment andthatthepoweris"remedi- setting isover.
argued thattheprovision wascompatibleal" as distinguished from"substantive." Secondly,notablein severalof these
withtheCourt's previousdecision inNew Whilethelinebetween measures thatrem- casesis thefactthattheCourtdidnotjust
York v.United Statesbothbecause nopolicy edyorprevent unconstitutional actionsand addressitsprevious precedents, butwent
makingon thepartof thestateswas measuresthatsubstantively changethe backto"first principles"and tookpainsto
involved and/or becausein thiscasethe Constitution is not easyto discern,the lay out a philosophy of federalism that
burdens onstates arelimited andareout- Courtdeclared thatthedistinction mustbe serves toindicate howfundamental anissue
weighed bythebenefits. TheCourtreject-observed. Further,theremustbe a congru- themajority in thesecasesconsiders the
ed thisreasoning andspecifically stated ence and proportionality betweenthe principlesof federalism. Equatingthe
thatwherein New Yorkit heldthat injury tobe prevented orremedied andthe TenthAmendment withtheFirstAmend-
Congress cannot compel theStatestoenact meansadopted. ment, andthedivision ofnational andstate
orenforce a federal regulatoryprogram, it The Court found that the RFRA powerwith the separationof powers
wasnowholding thatCongress cannot cir- appearsto be a substantivechangein con- between thebranches in nationalgovern-
cumvent thatprohibition byconscripting stitutional
protections. Requiring a Stateto mentsignalsthatthemajority does not
Stateofficers directly.TheCourtstated demonstrate a compellinginterestand consider thesetransitory matters, andthat
thattheFederalGovernment mayneither showthatithasadopted theleastrestrictiveit placesa highpriority on federalism. In
issue directivesrequiringthe statesto meansofachieving thatinterestis themost doing so, the Court seems to be also
addressparticular problems norcommand demanding testknownto constitutionalreasserting itspositionas thWe protector of

OyezOyez 97

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.105 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:14:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 andas thearbiter
federalism ofthedivision validatedtheexpansion of federal power federalism.
Theresurgence is real.
ofpowerbetween nationaland stategov- intomanyareas.Also,I do notforesee that
ernments. theCourthas now set out on a course CharlesR. 'Wiseis a professor ofpublic
whichwillalmost alwaysbring atIndianaUniversity.
itsdecisions affairs He is a former
downon thesideofthestates. On thecon- managing editorof PAR.He has received
Implications
theCourtwillcontinue
trary, to engagein theWilliamE. Mosherand Frederick C.
Thesecaseshave important implica- a balancingact thatbringsitsdecisions Mosherawardthreetimesforthebestarti-
tionsfortheconductofpublicadministra-downsometimes on thesideofthestates cle,written byan academic, to appearin
tionintheUnitedStates.TheCourt's deci- andothertimeson thesideofthefederal PAR He is theimmediatepastpresident
sion in New Yorkand its emphasisand government. Admittedly, theseselected oftheNationalAssociation of Schoolsof
extensionoftheprinciples
of NewYork in casescannotprovide a complete pictureof PublicAffairsandAdministration.
PrintzmakeitclearthattheCourtis plac- theSupremeCourt'sfederalism jurispru- References
ingreallimitson Nationalregulatory and dence.(Fora fullerexplication ofpublic Choper,JesseH. (1980).JudicialReviewandthe
administrative
schemes thatseekto utilize administration relatedcasesillustrating National Political
Process.
Chicago:University
thecapacityofthestates.The decisionsin howtheSupreme Courthastreated these ofChicagoPress.
CityofBoerneand SeminoleTribecreate issuesgenerally see Wise and O'Leary, Wise,Charlesand Rosemary O'Leary(1997).
morespaceforstateregulatory initiatives1992; and in a particularadministrative "Intergovernmental Relations
andFederalism
witha lesserthreatof invalidationby area, see Wise and O'Leary, 1997). in Environmental Management andPolicy:
meansofnational The decision Nonetheless,
legislation. federalism
advocates appearto TheRoleoftheCourts."PublicAdministra-
in Lopezshouldgivepauseto thosewho be ina fardifferent position
thanthey were tionReview57(2):150-159.
wouldexpandfederal regulatoryreachinto immediately aftertheCourt'sdecisionin Wise,Charles andRosemary O'Leary(1992)."Is
areastraditionally
lefttothestates. Garcia.Insteadofabdicating itsrolewith Federalism Dead or Alivein theSupreme
The reviewofthesecasesis notmeant respect to issuesoffederalism, theCourt Court?Implications forPublicAdministra-
to indicate thattheSupremeCourtis hasmakeitperfectly clearthatitis backin tors."PublicAdministration Review 52(6):
rolling
backitspreviousdecisionsthathave thedriver's seatas theArbiter-in-Chiefof 559-571.

98 Public
Administration
Review* March/April
1998,Vol.58,No.2

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.105 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:14:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions