Federalism & Dual Sovereignty: Constitution Explained!

The United States Constitution establishes a system of government characterized by federalism, a concept intrinsically linked to dual sovereignty. Understanding judicial review, a critical function of the Supreme Court, is crucial for interpreting the balance of power outlined within this framework. The division of authority between the federal government and individual state governments directly addresses what do federalism and dual sovereignty mean with respect to the constitution?, clarifying the distinct yet overlapping jurisdictions that shape American governance.

Image taken from the YouTube channel Lawline , from the video titled What is Dual Sovereignty? .

The U.S. Constitution establishes a complex framework for governing, and at its heart lie the principles of federalism and dual sovereignty. These concepts, while often used interchangeably, represent distinct yet interconnected aspects of the American political system. Understanding them is crucial for interpreting the Constitution and grasping the delicate balance of power it creates.

This section serves as an introduction to these core ideas, clarifying their meaning and highlighting their significance for anyone seeking to understand the American constitutional order.

Defining Federalism and Dual Sovereignty

Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national government and regional (state) governments. Each level of government has its own sphere of authority, and neither is completely subordinate to the other. This division is typically enshrined in a written constitution, which outlines the powers and responsibilities of each level.

In essence, federalism ensures that governmental power is dispersed rather than concentrated in a single entity.

Dual sovereignty takes this concept a step further. It recognizes that both the federal government and the state governments have sovereignty – that is, supreme authority – within their respective spheres.

This means that both can exercise power directly over the same citizens and territory, so long as they do not violate constitutional limitations. A single act can thus potentially violate both federal and state laws, leading to separate prosecutions by each sovereign.

The Importance of These Concepts in Constitutional Interpretation

Federalism and dual sovereignty are not merely abstract legal concepts; they are living principles that shape the interpretation and application of the U.S. Constitution. They inform how we understand the scope of federal power, the rights of the states, and the relationship between the government and the governed.

When interpreting constitutional clauses, such as the Commerce Clause or the Tenth Amendment, courts must consider the implications for the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Understanding federalism and dual sovereignty is also essential for evaluating the constitutionality of laws and policies. Does a particular federal law infringe upon the reserved powers of the states? Does a state law unduly burden interstate commerce? These are the kinds of questions that arise when applying these principles to real-world situations.

Article Objective: Unpacking Federalism and Dual Sovereignty

The primary objective of this discussion is to explain the meaning of federalism and dual sovereignty within the specific context of the U.S. Constitution. By examining the text of the Constitution, relevant Supreme Court cases, and historical context, this exploration aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of these foundational principles.

The goal is to equip readers with the knowledge necessary to engage in informed discussions about the proper role of government in American society and to critically evaluate the constitutional arguments that shape our political landscape.

Federalism Defined: Dividing Power Between National and State Governments

Having laid the groundwork by distinguishing between federalism and dual sovereignty, it's time to delve into the specifics of federalism itself. Understanding its core tenets is essential for appreciating the nuances of American governance.

What is Federalism? A Detailed Definition

At its heart, federalism is a system of government that divides power between a central, national government and several regional, state governments.

It's a system where both levels of government have their own designated spheres of authority. Neither level is entirely subordinate to the other. This division of power is typically codified in a written constitution, which serves as the supreme law of the land.

The U.S. Constitution meticulously outlines the powers and responsibilities of both the federal and state governments, providing a framework for their interaction.

Federalism seeks to balance the need for a strong national government with the desire to preserve the autonomy and diversity of individual states.

It's a compromise between centralized control and decentralized liberty.

The Structure of Government Under Federalism

In a federal system, the relationship between the national and state governments is carefully structured.

The national government is responsible for matters of national concern, such as defense, foreign policy, and interstate commerce. State governments, on the other hand, are responsible for matters of local concern, such as education, public safety, and intrastate commerce.

This layered structure fosters a dynamic tension, encouraging both cooperation and competition between levels of government.

It also allows for greater responsiveness to local needs and preferences, as state governments are closer to the people than the national government.

Division of Powers: Enumerated, Reserved, and Concurrent

The U.S. Constitution establishes a specific division of powers between the federal and state governments. These powers can be broadly categorized into three types: enumerated, reserved, and concurrent.

Enumerated Powers

Enumerated powers, also known as delegated powers, are those specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

These powers are explicitly listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and include the power to:

• Coin money
• Regulate interstate commerce
• Declare war
• Raise and support armies.

The principle of limited government is reflected in the enumeration of these specific powers.

Reserved Powers

Reserved powers are those powers that are not specifically delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution enshrines this principle.

These powers include the authority to:

• Regulate intrastate commerce
• Establish schools
• Conduct elections
• Provide for public safety.

The reserved powers ensure that states retain significant authority over matters within their borders.

Concurrent Powers

Concurrent powers are those powers that are shared by both the federal government and the state governments.

These powers include the authority to:

• Tax
• Borrow money
• Establish courts
• Enforce laws.

The exercise of concurrent powers can sometimes lead to conflict between the federal and state governments, requiring judicial resolution to determine the proper scope of each level's authority.

Having established the foundational principles of federalism and its structural division of power, it's logical to consider how these distinct jurisdictions can operate simultaneously within the same geographic space. This is where the concept of dual sovereignty comes into play, adding another layer of complexity to the American system of governance.

Dual Sovereignty Explained: Two Jurisdictions, One Territory

Dual sovereignty is a legal doctrine that recognizes the authority of both the federal and state governments to prosecute an individual for the same offense, without violating the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. It stems from the understanding that the federal and state governments derive their power from distinct sources.

Defining Dual Sovereignty

At its core, dual sovereignty means that the federal government and each state government possess their own independent and supreme authority within their respective spheres of influence. These spheres, while often overlapping geographically, are distinct in terms of their objectives and the interests they protect.

This doctrine acknowledges that a single act can constitute offenses against both federal and state laws, thereby justifying separate prosecutions by each sovereign.

The key here is understanding that each government is acting to uphold its own laws and protect its own interests, even if the underlying conduct is identical.

The Interplay Between Dual Sovereignty and Federalism

Dual sovereignty is inextricably linked to the principles of federalism. Federalism creates the framework for dividing power, while dual sovereignty provides the legal justification for the concurrent exercise of that power over the same territory and citizens.

Without federalism, the concept of dual sovereignty would be meaningless.

It's the division of powers inherent in a federal system that allows for the existence of separate and distinct governmental interests. This separation allows each level of government to act independently, even when their actions touch upon the same events or individuals.

Dual sovereignty ensures that neither the federal nor the state governments can unilaterally undermine the authority of the other.

Real-World Examples: When Two Sovereigns Act

The most common and readily understood example of dual sovereignty in action is in the realm of criminal prosecutions. Consider a scenario where an individual robs a federally insured bank and, in the process, commits assault.

The federal government could prosecute the individual for bank robbery, a federal crime. Simultaneously, the state government could prosecute the same individual for assault, a state crime.

Even though both prosecutions stem from the same underlying incident, they do not constitute double jeopardy because each government is acting under its own authority to enforce its own laws.

Another illustrative example can be found in environmental law. A company might violate both federal and state environmental regulations by polluting a waterway. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) could pursue federal charges, while the state's environmental agency could pursue state charges, both for the same act of pollution.

These concurrent prosecutions are permissible under the doctrine of dual sovereignty because each government has its own distinct interest in protecting the environment within its jurisdiction. This ensures more comprehensive enforcement of the laws.

The doctrine of dual sovereignty has been upheld by the Supreme Court in numerous cases. These cases confirm its crucial role in maintaining the balance of power between the federal government and the states within the framework of American federalism.

Having established the foundational principles of federalism and its structural division of power, it's logical to consider how these distinct jurisdictions can operate simultaneously within the same geographic space. This is where the concept of dual sovereignty comes into play, adding another layer of complexity to the American system of governance.

The Constitution's Foundation: Establishing Federalism and Dual Sovereignty

The principles of federalism and dual sovereignty, while not explicitly detailed in a single constitutional provision, are deeply embedded within the structure and text of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution itself acts as the bedrock upon which these doctrines are built, delineating the scope of federal power while simultaneously acknowledging the existence of sovereign state authority.

The Structural Basis for Federalism

The very design of the U.S. government, with its division into three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) at both the federal and state levels, reflects a commitment to federalism. This separation of powers, coupled with the enumeration of specific powers to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, inherently limits the scope of federal authority.

Conversely, the Constitution implicitly reserves significant powers to the states.

This careful balancing act is at the heart of the American federalist system.

The Tenth Amendment: Defining States' Rights

The Tenth Amendment is often cited as the clearest textual affirmation of states' rights.

It states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This amendment underscores the principle that any powers not explicitly given to the federal government, nor denied to the states, are retained by those states (or the people).

The Tenth Amendment serves as a critical safeguard against federal overreach.

It recognizes the states as independent centers of authority.

The Supremacy Clause: Resolving Conflicts

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, establishes that the Constitution and federal laws made in pursuance of it are the supreme law of the land.

This means that when federal and state laws conflict, federal law prevails.

However, the Supremacy Clause only applies when the federal government is acting within its constitutionally enumerated powers.

It does not grant the federal government unlimited authority to override state laws.

The interplay between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment defines the delicate balance between federal and state power.

The Necessary and Proper Clause: Expanding Federal Power

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, known as the Necessary and Proper Clause (or the Elastic Clause), grants Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This clause has been interpreted to allow Congress to enact laws that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution, provided that these laws are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers.

The Necessary and Proper Clause has been a source of considerable debate throughout American history, with some arguing that it grants the federal government excessive power.

Others maintain that it is essential for the effective functioning of the national government.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of this clause, particularly in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, has significantly shaped the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Having established the foundational principles of federalism and its structural division of power, it's logical to consider how these distinct jurisdictions can operate simultaneously within the same geographic space. This is where the concept of dual sovereignty comes into play, adding another layer of complexity to the American system of governance.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Shaping the Interpretation of Federalism

The interpretation of federalism and dual sovereignty hasn't remained static since the Constitution's inception. Instead, its understanding has evolved significantly through landmark Supreme Court cases, which have served as pivotal moments in defining the relationship between the federal government and the states. These cases provide concrete examples of how the judiciary applies constitutional principles to real-world scenarios.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): A Cornerstone of Federal Power

Arguably the most influential case in shaping the understanding of federalism is McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). This case centered on the question of whether the state of Maryland could tax the Second Bank of the United States, a federally chartered bank. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, delivered a landmark ruling that had far-reaching implications for the scope of federal power.

The Necessary and Proper Clause: Expanding Federal Authority

The Court's decision in McCulloch hinged on the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) of the Constitution. This clause grants Congress the power to make all laws “necessary and proper” for carrying out its enumerated powers.

Marshall argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause should be interpreted broadly, not restrictively. He reasoned that if the end (establishing a national bank) was legitimate and within the scope of Congress's enumerated powers (such as regulating commerce and coining money), then Congress had the implied power to choose any means not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution to achieve that end.

Implied Powers Doctrine

McCulloch v. Maryland established the doctrine of implied powers, which holds that the federal government possesses powers beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution. This doctrine significantly expanded the scope of federal authority and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

The Supremacy Clause Reinforced

The Court also invoked the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the Constitution, which declares that the Constitution and federal laws are the supreme law of the land. Marshall asserted that because the national bank was a legitimate exercise of federal power, Maryland's attempt to tax it was unconstitutional. “The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” he famously wrote, implying that states could not use their taxing power to undermine federal authority.

Other Key Cases Shaping Federalism

While McCulloch v. Maryland is perhaps the most influential case, other Supreme Court decisions have also played a significant role in defining the contours of federalism.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Regulating Interstate Commerce

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) addressed the scope of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The case involved a dispute over steamboat operations in New York waters. The Court held that Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states extended to all aspects of interstate commerce, including navigation. This decision further solidified federal authority over matters affecting multiple states.

United States v. Lopez (1995): A Check on Federal Power

More recently, United States v. Lopez (1995) demonstrated a shift in the Court's approach to federalism. In Lopez, the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. The Court reasoned that the act exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause because possessing a gun in a school zone did not substantially affect interstate commerce.

Lopez is significant because it marked the first time in decades that the Court had limited Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. It signaled a renewed emphasis on the importance of preserving state sovereignty and preventing the federal government from overreaching its constitutional authority.

Chief Justice John Marshall: A Shaping Influence

Chief Justice John Marshall's tenure on the Supreme Court (1801-1835) was a transformative period for American constitutional law. Marshall's strong advocacy for national supremacy and his broad interpretation of federal powers left an indelible mark on the understanding of federalism. His opinions in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden laid the foundation for a strong national government and continue to be cited in contemporary debates about the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Marshall's vision of federalism emphasized the need for a strong national government to promote national unity and economic prosperity. His decisions helped to establish the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional disputes and shaped the course of American federalism for generations to come.

Having examined how the Supreme Court has shaped the understanding of federalism through landmark cases, it's important to recognize that these legal interpretations didn't emerge in a vacuum. The very foundation of federalism, as enshrined in the Constitution, was the product of intense debate and compromise, and subsequent historical events have continued to mold its practical application.

Historical Context: Debates and Events Influencing Federalism

The story of American federalism is not merely a legal one; it's deeply intertwined with the nation's political and social history. The debates surrounding the Constitution's ratification, the Civil War, and other key events have all played a crucial role in shaping the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

The Ratification Debates: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The U.S. Constitution was not universally embraced upon its completion in 1787. The ratification process sparked intense debates between two opposing factions: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. These debates offer invaluable insight into the original understanding of federalism and the concerns that shaped its implementation.

James Madison and the Federalist Vision

James Madison, a leading Federalist, championed the Constitution through The Federalist Papers. He argued for a strong national government capable of addressing the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.

Madison believed that a well-constructed federal system, with its division of powers, would prevent tyranny and promote stability. He emphasized the need for a national government with sufficient authority to regulate commerce, conduct foreign policy, and ensure domestic tranquility.

The Anti-Federalist Concerns: States' Rights and Individual Liberties

The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, feared that the Constitution would create an overly powerful central government that would trample on the rights of states and individuals. They argued that the Constitution lacked sufficient protections for individual liberties and that the federal government would become too distant and unresponsive to the needs of the people.

Prominent Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason, advocated for a Bill of Rights to explicitly protect individual freedoms and limit the power of the federal government. They also emphasized the importance of preserving the sovereignty of the states, arguing that state governments were better equipped to address the unique needs and concerns of their citizens.

The Bill of Rights: A Compromise on Federal Power

The Anti-Federalists' concerns ultimately led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which included the Tenth Amendment. This amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Bill of Rights represents a crucial compromise that helped to secure the ratification of the Constitution and solidify the principles of federalism. It acknowledged the importance of protecting individual liberties and limiting the power of the federal government, while still allowing for a strong national government capable of effectively governing the nation.

Major Historical Events and the Shifting Balance of Power

Beyond the ratification debates, major historical events have significantly influenced the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

The Civil War: A Watershed Moment for Federal Authority

The Civil War (1861-1865) stands as a pivotal moment in the history of American federalism. The conflict, triggered by disagreements over slavery and states' rights, ultimately led to a significant expansion of federal power.

The Union victory established the supremacy of the federal government over the states and affirmed the principle that states could not secede from the Union. The war also resulted in the passage of constitutional amendments, such as the Fourteenth Amendment, which further expanded federal power by guaranteeing equal protection and due process under the law.

The New Deal: Expanding the Federal Role in the Economy

The Great Depression of the 1930s prompted President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, a series of programs and policies designed to address the economic crisis. The New Deal marked a significant expansion of the federal government's role in the economy and in the lives of ordinary Americans.

Federal programs such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) established a new federal presence in areas previously considered the domain of state and local governments or the private sector. These initiatives led to debates about the appropriate balance of power between the federal government and the states, with some critics arguing that the New Deal represented an overreach of federal authority.

The Civil Rights Movement: Federal Protection of Individual Rights

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s saw the federal government take a leading role in protecting the civil rights of African Americans, often in the face of resistance from state and local governments. Landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 empowered the federal government to combat discrimination and ensure equal rights for all citizens.

These federal interventions, while crucial for advancing civil rights, also sparked debates about the proper role of the federal government in addressing issues of social justice and equality. Some argued that the federal government was overstepping its bounds and infringing on states' rights, while others maintained that federal action was necessary to protect fundamental rights and ensure equal opportunity.

Having examined how the Supreme Court has shaped the understanding of federalism through landmark cases, it's important to recognize that these legal interpretations didn't emerge in a vacuum. The very foundation of federalism, as enshrined in the Constitution, was the product of intense debate and compromise, and subsequent historical events have continued to mold its practical application.

Contemporary Issues: Federalism in Modern America

The principles of federalism and dual sovereignty, far from being relics of a bygone era, are intensely relevant to many of the most pressing issues facing the United States today. Modern debates surrounding immigration, healthcare, and environmental regulation often hinge on differing interpretations of the appropriate balance of power between the federal government and the states. These issues highlight the ongoing tension inherent in a federal system, where both levels of government possess legitimate, yet sometimes conflicting, claims to authority.

Immigration: A Battleground for Federal and State Power

Immigration policy stands as a prime example of the complexities of federalism in action. The federal government, by constitutional design, holds primary responsibility for regulating immigration and naturalization. This is rooted in the need for a unified national policy on who can enter and reside in the country, as well as how they can become citizens.

However, states have a legitimate interest in the impacts of immigration on their communities, economies, and social services.

This has led to numerous clashes, particularly concerning state laws aimed at enforcing federal immigration laws or addressing issues related to undocumented immigrants. Arizona's SB 1070, for instance, sparked a national debate about the extent to which states can act on immigration matters when the federal government is perceived as being inactive or ineffective.

Arguments in favor of state involvement in immigration often center on the idea that states are closer to the problems and therefore better equipped to address them. They emphasize the need for states to protect their resources and maintain public safety.

Conversely, opponents of state-level immigration enforcement argue that it can lead to discriminatory practices, undermine national uniformity, and interfere with federal prerogatives. They also point out that a patchwork of state laws can create confusion and hardship for immigrants and businesses alike.

Healthcare: The Affordable Care Act and Federalism

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has ignited intense debates about the proper role of the federal government in healthcare. The ACA's expansion of Medicaid, in particular, raised significant questions about the extent to which the federal government can compel states to participate in federal programs.

The Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) affirmed Congress's power to enact the ACA's individual mandate but limited its ability to coerce states into expanding Medicaid. The Court held that the ACA's Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive because it threatened states with the loss of all their existing Medicaid funding if they refused to comply.

This decision underscored the principle that while the federal government can incentivize states to adopt certain policies, it cannot unduly infringe upon their sovereign authority.

Arguments in favor of federal involvement in healthcare often emphasize the need for universal access to care and the importance of addressing disparities in health outcomes across states. Proponents of federal action also point to the potential for economies of scale and the benefits of a national approach to healthcare reform.

On the other hand, those who advocate for a more limited federal role in healthcare argue that states are better positioned to tailor healthcare policies to the specific needs and preferences of their residents. They emphasize the importance of state experimentation and the potential for innovation in a decentralized system.

Environmental Regulation: Balancing National Standards and State Interests

Environmental regulation presents another complex area where federalism plays a crucial role. The federal government, through agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sets national standards for air and water quality, as well as for the management of hazardous waste.

However, states also have significant responsibilities for implementing and enforcing environmental regulations, as well as for addressing local environmental concerns. This division of authority can lead to conflicts, particularly when states feel that federal regulations are overly burdensome or fail to adequately address their specific needs.

The debate over climate change policy further illustrates the tensions inherent in environmental federalism. While the federal government has taken steps to address climate change through regulations and international agreements, some states have pursued their own, more aggressive policies, such as cap-and-trade programs and renewable energy standards.

Arguments in favor of federal environmental regulation emphasize the need for national standards to protect the environment and public health. Proponents of federal action also point to the interstate nature of many environmental problems and the need for a coordinated national response.

Conversely, those who advocate for a more decentralized approach to environmental regulation argue that states are better equipped to address local environmental problems and that state experimentation can lead to innovative solutions. They also emphasize the importance of balancing environmental protection with economic development.

The Ongoing Evolution of Federalism

The examples of immigration, healthcare, and environmental regulation demonstrate that the balance of power between the federal government and the states is constantly being negotiated and renegotiated in response to changing circumstances and evolving political priorities.

These ongoing debates underscore the enduring relevance of federalism as a fundamental principle of American governance and its continuing influence on the shape of public policy. The interpretation and application of federalism will continue to be a central theme in American politics for the foreseeable future.

Having seen federalism tested through legislative action and historical events, it's now crucial to understand how the Supreme Court, through its power of judicial review, actively shapes the boundaries of federal and state authority. These court decisions aren't merely interpretations of the law; they are powerful pronouncements that determine the practical scope of governmental power and the lived reality of federalism.

Judicial Review and Federalism: The Supreme Court's Role

Judicial review, the power of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional, is a cornerstone of American federalism. It provides the mechanism through which the balance of power between the federal government and the states is continually negotiated and redefined.

The Court's decisions in federalism cases often involve interpreting the Constitution's provisions concerning the division of powers, such as the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Supremacy Clause. These interpretations can either expand or contract the scope of federal authority, impacting the autonomy of state governments.

The Supreme Court as Umpire of Federalism

The Supreme Court acts as the umpire in disputes between the federal government and the states, determining whether a particular law or action oversteps the constitutional boundaries of either. This role is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but was established early on in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

The Court’s decisions set precedents that guide future legislative and executive actions, shaping the ongoing evolution of federalism in the United States. Its rulings reflect not only legal principles but also evolving societal values and policy considerations, making the Court a key player in the dynamic interplay between national and state interests.

Examples of Supreme Court Rulings on Federalism

Numerous Supreme Court cases illustrate the judiciary's profound influence on the balance of power.

• United States v. Lopez (1995): This case limited the scope of the Commerce Clause, ruling that Congress exceeded its authority by enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Court held that possessing a gun in a school zone did not substantially affect interstate commerce, thus pushing back against federal overreach.

• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): While upholding most of the Affordable Care Act, the Court limited Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to compel states to expand Medicaid. This decision affirmed the principle that the federal government cannot unduly coerce states into participating in federal programs.

• Shelby County v. Holder (2013): The Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that the formula used to determine which states needed federal preclearance for voting changes was outdated. This decision significantly altered the relationship between the federal government and states concerning voting rights, shifting power back to the states.

The Ongoing Evolution of Federalism Through Judicial Decisions

These cases, among many others, demonstrate the Supreme Court's active role in defining and redefining the boundaries of federalism. The Court’s interpretations of the Constitution, while rooted in legal precedent, are also shaped by contemporary concerns and evolving understandings of the appropriate balance between national and state power.

The judicial review process ensures that the principles of federalism remain relevant and adaptable to changing circumstances, making the Supreme Court a critical force in the ongoing evolution of American governance.

Video: Federalism & Dual Sovereignty: Constitution Explained!

Play Video