CHAPTER THREE • FEdERAlISM 61
Federal Mandate
A requirement in federal
legislation that forces
states and municipalities
to comply with certain
rules.1980s and 1990s to force the states to raise their minimum alcoholic beverage drinking
age to twentyone.Federal Mandates. For years, the federal government has passed legislation requiring
that states improve environmental conditions or the civil rights of various groups. Since the
1970s, the national government has enacted hundreds of federal mandates requiring
the states to take some action in areas ranging from voter registration, to oceandumping
restrictions, to the education of people with disabilities. The Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 requires the Congressional Budget Office to identify mandates that cost state
and local governments more than $50 million to implement. Nonetheless, the federal
government routinely continues to pass mandates for state and local governments that
cost more than that to put into place.Federalism and Today’s Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court, which normally has the final say on constitutional
issues, plays a major role in determining where the line is drawn between federal and
state powers. Consider the decisions rendered by Chief Justice John Marshall in the cases
discussed earlier in this chapter. Since the 1930s, Marshall’s broad interpretation of the
commerce clause has made it possible for the national government to justify its regulation
of almost any activity, even when the activity appears to be completely local in character.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, however, the Court evidenced a willingness to impose some
limits on the national government’s authority under the commerce clause and other con
stitutional provisions. As a result, it is difficult to predict how today’s Court might rule on
a particular case involving federalism.A Trend toward States’ Rights?
Since the mid1990s, the Supreme Court has tended to give greater weight to states’
rights than it did during previous decades. In a widely publicized 1995 case, the
Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under
the commerce clause when it passed the GunFree School Zones Act in 1990.^8 The
Court stated that the act, which banned the possession of guns within one thousand
feet of any school, was unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate an area
that had “nothing to do with commerce, or any sort of economic enterprise.” This
marked the first time in sixty years that the Supreme Court had placed a limit on the
national government’s authority under the commerce clause.
Although the Court has tended to favor states’ rights in some decisions, in other
decisions it has backed the federal government’s position. For example, in 2005 the Court
held that the federal government’s power to declare various substances to be illegal drugs
superseded California’s law legalizing the use of marijuana for medical treatment.^9 Yet less
than a year later, the Court favored states’ rights when it upheld Oregon’s controversial
“death with dignity” law, which allows patients with terminal illnesses to choose to end
their lives early and thus avoid suffering.^10- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).
LO5: Detail recent Supreme
Court rulings that affect the
distribution of power between
the national government and
the states.Copyright 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.