Federalism Conflicts in the United States

Conflicts over Federalism

Introduction to Federalism Conflicts

From the time the Constitution was adopted in 1789, questions about the exact boundary between state and national power have sparked frequent disputes. Using “states’ rights” as support for their cause, Southern states defended the practice of slavery as an issue for states to decide, while Northern states pushed to abolish slavery. Combined with economic and political tensions between the states, slavery led 11 Southern states to secede (withdraw) from the Union during 1860 and 1861. The American Civil War, which began in 1861, was partly a conflict over the proper role of national and state governments.

The power of Congress to make laws affecting state and local issues grew steadily after the Civil War ended in 1865. The Supreme Court of the United States gave Congress more and more control over the states, often basing its decisions on the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This clause empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. By the late 19th century the Supreme Court interpreted this authority broadly, allowing Congress to take action on food quality, child labor, and other problems not specifically related to interstate trade. The Supreme Court further expanded the scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause during the New Deal in the 1930s. The New Deal, which President Franklin Roosevelt created to confront the country’s economic depression, included laws affecting nearly every home and workplace. The Supreme Court upheld most of Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives, including laws setting minimum standards for pay and working conditions, protecting labor unions, and regulating farm production. After World War II (1939-1945), national authority under the Commerce Clause continued to grow.

The action of Congress against racial segregation stands as the most important expansion of national power in the postwar period. Some Southern states argued that the Tenth Amendment gave them the right to maintain segregation and that Congress had no authority to interfere in purely local matters. In 1964 the Supreme Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States that despite the rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment, Congress had the authority to bar segregation because it could harm interstate commerce.

The authority of the federal government has also grown as a result of a more gradual increase in power at all levels of government in the United States. Since the Constitution was adopted in 1789, national, state, and local governments all have assumed more powers and duties. They have been forced to do so by the increase in population, the growth of cities and towns, the rise of huge industries, and the ever-growing need for better roads, railways, and communication systems. Once strictly local, problems such as crime and transportation have become national issues.

Many experts defend the growth in power of the federal government in the United States. They insist that the public interest demands federal control in cases involving more than one state. Other experts fear that the continued expansion of federal authority over state and local matters will create an inefficient and possibly dangerous concentration of power in federal hands.

When conflicts arise, the courts must decide how to balance states’ rights with the needs of the nation. Although federal courts tend to take a broad view of national powers, in the early and mid-1990s the Supreme Court issued several rulings that curtailed congressional power over the states. In 1992, for example, the court ruled that Congress could not require states to make laws controlling radioactive waste. The Court issued another important decision in 1997, ruling that Congress could not compel local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun buyers.

In 1999 the Court issued a series of rulings that further shifted power from the federal government to the states. In three 5-to-4 decisions that reflected the justices’ deep divisions over how to balance state and federal powers, the Court strengthened the principle of sovereign immunity, which gives states immunity from lawsuits arising from violations of federal law. In one case, the Court ruled that state employees cannot sue states for overtime wages due to them under federal labor laws. In the two other cases, the Court ruled that businesses cannot sue states in federal court for patent infringement or false advertising claims that violate federal law. In a similar decision in 2000, the Court ruled that states cannot be sued for violating a federal age-discrimination law. In 2001 the Court ruled that state employees cannot sue states for money damages based on employment-discrimination violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Combined with earlier rulings, the decisions reduced the ability of individuals to sue states for violating federal law.” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

• Information about Federalism Conflicts in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia

Guide to Federalism Conflicts

In this Section

Federalism, Federalism Beginnings, Federalism in the Constitution and Federalism Conflicts.