William_T._Bianco,_David_T._Canon]_American_Polit

Federalism today 91

However, with the appointment of three conservative justices between 1986 and

1991 who favored a stronger role for the states, the Court started to limit Congress’s

reach. One of its techniques was to require that Congress provide an unambiguous

statement of its intent for a particular law to overrule state authority. For example, the

Court ruled that the Missouri constitution, which requires state judges to retire by

age 70, did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because Congress

did not make its intentions “unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.”^16

The Fourteenth Amendment The Supreme Court has also empowered states by

limiting the applicability of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to state laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to give the national government broad

control over the potentially discriminatory laws of southern states after the Civil War.

Section 1 guarantees that no state shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of

Recent Important Supreme Court Decisions

on Federalism

TA B L E

3.2

Case Holding and Significance for States’ Rights Direction of the Decision

Gregory v. Ashcroft ( 1991 ) The Missouri constitution’s requirement that state judges retire by age 70 did not

violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

More state power

United States v. Lopez

( 1995)

Carrying a gun in a school did not fall within “interstate commerce”; thus, Congress

could not prohibit the possession of guns on school property.

More state power

Seminole Tribe v. Florida

( 1996)

The Court used the Eleventh Amendment to strengthen states’ sovereign immunity,

ruling that Congress could not compel a state to negotiate with Native American tribes

about gaming and casinos.

More state power

City of Boerne v. Flores

( 1997 )

The Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as an overly broad

attempt to curtail the state-sponsored harassment of religion, saying that national

legislation aimed at remedying states’ discrimination must be “congruent and

proportional” to the harm.

More state power

United States v. Morrison

(2000)

The Court struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act, saying that Congress

did not have the power under the commerce clause to provide a national remedy for

gender-based crimes.

More state power

Alabama v. Garrett (2001) The Court struck down the portion of the ADA that applied to the states, saying that

state governments are not required to make special accommodations for the disabled.

More state power

Nevada Department of

Human Resources v. Hibbs

(2003)

The Court upheld Congress’s power to apply the 1993 Family Leave Act to state

employees as “appropriate legislation” under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Less state power

United States v. Bond

(2011)

The Court upheld an individual’s right to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law

under the Tenth Amendment.

More state power

National Federation of

Independent Business v.

Sebelius (2012)

The Court upheld most provisions of the ACA but struck down the expansion of

Medicaid as an unconstitutional use of coercive federalism (states could voluntarily take

the additional funding to cover the expansion, but they would not lose existing funds if

they opted out).

Mixed

United States v. Windsor

(2013)

The Court held that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional because it denied federal

benefits to same-sex couples who were legally married under state law.

More state power

Shelby County v. Holder

(2013)

The Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act on the grounds that it

violated the “equal sovereignty” of the states. More state power

Full_04_APT_64431_ch03_070-101.indd 91 16/11/18 1:30 PM