The Values of Federalism
Posted: 2 Oct 1999
Abstract
Since 1937, the Supreme Court's approach to federalism has been paradoxical. The Court has used federalism as a limit on federal judicial power, but has been very reluctant to use federalism as a limit on Congressional power. Cases from Erie Railroad v. Tompkins to Younger v. Harris have relied on federalism to circumscribe federal judicial power. In contrast, with a few notable exceptions, the Court has not used federalism to invalidate federal laws or to restrict the scope of Congressional authority. None of the traditional values of federalism--limiting the chance of tyranny by the national government, enhancing democracy because states are closer to the people, and providing laboratories for experimentation -- explain this paradox.In fact, generally, the Court's decisions in the area of federalism have little relationship to the underlying values that federalism is supposed to serve. In the last few years, the Court seems to be moving to end the paradox. In New York v. United States (1992), the Court invalidated a federal law based on principles of federalism. This case may well portend the use of federalism as a limit on Congressional powers. Yet, this decision, too, seems to have little relationship to the underlying values of federalism. A reorientation of federalism decisions requires a careful consideration of the values that federalism serves. The Supreme Court should decide federalism issues based on the goals to be attained, not simply based on slogans about "Our Federalism" and "states as laboratories."
JEL Classification: K00
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation