Use of Power by President in Country Federal System Cases

The cases this week deal with different aspects of how the Supreme Court has responded to federalism issues and administrative state issues. Additionally, we consider some recent opinion pieces regarding the President’s use of power in our federal system. Finally, we will review the history of “grants in aid” and how such grants feature in Congress’s power vis-à-vis the states.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 2 (2013)

1. This case deals with principles of federalism. What is federalism and does the Court strengthen it or weaken it in this case?
2. What is the “principle of equal sovereignty”?
3. Does the majority’s reasoning in this case reflect originalist jurisprudence or living constitution jurisprudence?

INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)

1. What is the legislative veto?
2. What was the Court’s reasoning in this decision?
3. Are any of the three branches of the federal government strengthened or weakened by this decision?

Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

1. What was the legal question that Court was trying to answer in this case?
2. Since Chevron was decided the Court and commentators have used the phrase “administrative deference” or “Chevron deference”. What does this mean?
3. Big Think Question: What implications, if any, does administrative government, including Chevron deference, have regarding the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers?

Charles J. Cooper, “Confronting the Administrative State,” National Affairs No. 25 (Fall 2015): 96-108.

1. What is Cooper’s thesis and what evidence is used to support it?
2. Do you agree with Cooper’s argument? Explain.

William A. Galston, “Trump Flunks Federalism 101,” Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-flunks-federalism-101-11586905741?shareToken=st1837f0e96e0e48b6932b183730e6863b (Links to an external site.), or go to the MSU Library’s portal to locate article)

1) Galston refers to a “unitary system.” If the U.S. had a unitary system, what would that look like?

2) Galston claims NFIB v. Siblius “slams the door” on any possibility the federal government can condition the states to comply with federal wishes. After re-reading the portion of the case that deals with this issue, do you think Galston is correct? Why or why not?

David B. Rivkin Jr.and Lee A. Casey, “Presidential Power is Limited But Vast,” Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/presidential-power-is-limited-but-vast-11586988414?shareToken=st6d434eff0e434c1d8e0f0ab7ef1dfaef (Links to an external site.), or go to the MSU Library’s portal to locate article)

1) The authors refer to the problem of which side wins when both the federal government and the states exercise their powers under their respective constitutions. Who prevails, the federal government or the states?

2) Although not specifically identified in the article, what constitutional provisions are concerned with the conflict between state and federal power? (Hint: Some are in the original Constitution, others are in the amendments.)

Robert Jay Dilger, “Federal Grants-in-Aid: An Historical Perspective on Contemporary Issues” (Congressional Research Service) (2010) (posted on Canvas under “Files”).

1) Name and briefly define the “mechanisms” for federal aid.

2) How does Congress manage and confirm that money it provides to the states is being spent in the manner it wished?

3) What was the “devolution revolution” concept? Why did it not occur?