Abstract
Federalism got a bit more complicated this Term. In two cases, particularly Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Supreme Court did things in the area of federal/state relations that many analysts weren’t quite expecting.
Two of the biggest federalism cases of this past Term involved two of the four main doctrinal frameworks that the Court has developed in balancing federal and state powers: Congress’ power and the limits on its power under the Commerce Clause and the limited scope of Congress’ power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This essay discusses the implications of Hibbs and Pierce County v. Guillen on federalism jurisprudence.
Two of the biggest federalism cases of this past Term involved two of the four main doctrinal frameworks that the Court has developed in balancing federal and state powers: Congress’ power and the limits on its power under the Commerce Clause and the limited scope of Congress’ power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This essay discusses the implications of Hibbs and Pierce County v. Guillen on federalism jurisprudence.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 349 |
| Journal | Green Bag 2d |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| State | Published - 2003 |