62 PART ONE • THE AMERICAN SYSTEM
Recent Decisions
In recent rulings, the Supreme Court has often shown sympathy for
states’ rights, while sometimes backing the federal government.Immigration. In one important opinion, the Court found that
Arizona had gone too far in its attempt to subject unauthorized
immigration to state authority. Under the ruling, Arizona cannot
make it a crime when illegal immigrants fail to carry identification
papers or attempt to find work. Arizona police cannot arrest indi
viduals solely on suspicion of illegal status.^11Health-Care Reform. It was the Court’s opinion on the Affordable
Care Act (Obamacare) that was expected to be the most important
states’ rights ruling in decades. In the end, the Court’s 2012 ver
dict was somewhat anticlimactic. It did not find that the individual
mandate—a penalty imposed on those who do not buy healthcare
insurance—violated the police powers of the states. (The Court
also found that while the mandate could not be justified under
the commerce clause, it was legitimate under the national govern
ment’s power to tax.) Chief Justice John Roberts’s ruling on Medicaid
expansion did hearten states’ rights advocates, however. By making
Medicaid expansion optional for the states, the Court for the first
time put limits on the ability of the federal government to coerce
states by withholding grants.^12Same-Sex Marriage. In 2013, the Court’s two rulings on same
sex marriage also tended to enhance the authority of the states.
(We described these rulings in the At Issue feature in this chapter.)
True, by refusing to rule on a California case, the Court in effect
prevented the state’s voters from banning samesex marriage. This
step, however, allowed all the other states to continue making their
own decisions about the issue.^13 Also, the Court’s ruling that the
federal government must recognize stateapproved samesex mar
riages was a victory for states’ rights, as well as for samesex couples
in the affected states.^14The voting Rights Act. Finally, the Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act was a striking
triumph for states’ rights. The 1965 act imposed certain requirements on states and locali
ties—mostly in the South—with a history of violating the voting rights of minority group
members. Such areas had to obtain preclearance from the federal government to make
changes in voting procedures or districts. In June 2013, the Court effectively destroyed
the preclearance system, giving all affected governments the right to set their own voting
rules without restriction.^15Arizona governor Jan Brewer
was the center of much controversy over a
2010 state law restricting the rights of illegal
immigrants. The United States Supreme Court
overturned parts of the law in 2012. Is it
appropriate for state governments to adopt
special state policies on immigration? (Mark
Wilson/Getty Images)- Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012).
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566 (2012).
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. ___ (2013).
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013).
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013).
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.