Diffusion and Diversity: Federalism and the Right to Die in the Fifty States

Right-to-die issues—from the right to have life-sustainingtreatment withdrawn to the right to assisted suicide—arebecoming important sources of state policy activity. Withoutmuch federal instruction, some state courts have constructeda general consensus position for other courts to follow usingthe federal Constitution to legitimize their decisions. Statelegislatures have accomplished less. Statutory diversity wasthe rule until recently, with legislatures passing a rich varietyof generally conservative rules. Lately, with the pressure fromrights-oriented interest groups and professional organizations,state legislators have been edging closer to the more liberalpattern of policy charted by judges of the state supreme courts.Policymaking that applies to assisted suicide may be expectedto follow the same pattern: the federal government will remainsilent while the state courts take the lead using the U.S. Constitutionas ammunition. The state legislatures can be expected to trailbehind, catching up to the courts only after statutory diversityis found wanting.     

Macro Implementation: Testing the Causal Paths from U.S. Macro Policy to Federal Incarceration

Policy implementation is usually studied at the micro level by testing the short‐term effects of a specific policy on the behavior of government actors and policy outcomes. This study adopts an alternative approach by examining macro implementation—the cumulative effect of aggregate public policies over time. I employ a variety of methodological techniques to test the influence of macro criminal justice policy on new admissions to federal prison via three mediators: case filings by federal prosecutors, conviction rates in federal district courts, and plea bargaining behavior. I find that cumulative Supreme Court rulings influence the incarceration rate by altering conviction rates in district courts; however, I find only mixed evidence of congressional and presidential influence. The results suggest that U.S. macro policy influences bureaucratic outputs by altering the behavior of subordinate policy implementers; however, the Supreme Court may enjoy an advantage in shaping criminal justice policy.     

U.S. Prosecution of State and Local Officials for Political Corruption: Is the Bureaucracy Out of Control in a High-Stakes Operation Involving the Constitutional System?

Perhaps the most serious and disabling federal intrusion ofrecent years into the independent political status of stateand local governments has been actions by the U.S. governmentto prosecute elected state and local officials and their closeassociates for local political corruption. In 1986 U.S. Attorneysin New York, Boston, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, andelsewhere pursued such investigations and prosecutions withunusual vigor. These activities have a recent genesis—since1974—and they are basically unauthorized, in importantrespects out of control, and overall questionable in terms ofthe federal nature of our constitutional system. These findingsare supported by data from the Public Integrity Section of theCriminal Division and the Office for U.S. Attorneys, both inthe Department of Justice, and by opinions of U.S. courts, legislativehistories of bills and statutes, and sources on criminal lawand political corruption.     

New State Equality: The Ambiguous History of a Constitutional Principle

In Coyle v. Smith (1911), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled thatCongress could not impose admissions conditions on new statesthat detracted from their equal standing in the union. Previously,the Court had deferred to Congress' authority over federal territoryand over its own membership. Before the Civil War, federal interestsin new states—particularly with respect to public lands—weresecured through admissions conditions. Later, however, admissions"compacts" became increasingly redundant; the Court groundedfederal property claims in the new states on the "rules andregulations" provision of the Constitution. Meanwhile, in aseries of decisions, the Court began to uphold the "municipalsovereignty" of the territories against congressional interference.Congress' authority in the territories was progressively limitedto that of acting as "trustee" for future states. These doctrinaldevelopments culminated in Coyle. The Court challenged Congress'right to set invidious admission conditions and asserted itsown jurisdiction over the state-making process. The new stateequality principle thus became "constitutional" as the Courtextended its authority. I wish to thank Herman Belz, University of Maryland, for helpfulcriticism.     

The Legal Order and the Administration of Federal and State Courts

The Nigerian Constitution of 1989 establishes a system of federaland state courts, but within a structure of unified federal-statejurisdiction from the federal and state high courts, to thefederal Court of Appeal, and to the national Supreme Court.Thus, both sets of courts exercise jurisdiction with respectto federal and state laws. Although this system mitigates certainfederal-state jurisdictional conflicts, it does not eliminatesuch conflicts. At the same time, however, the Constitutionalso provides for Sharia courts of appeal under Moslem law andfor customary-law courts of appeal, thus establishing a tripartitesystem of justice. Although this system seeks to accommodateNigeria's ethnic and religious diversity, it does raise problemsfor national unity, judicial uniformity, and equity in the administrationof civil and criminal justice.     

The changing role of the federal and state courts in safeguarding the rights of the mentally disabled

From the mid-1960s until the early 1980s, federal courts havegreatly expanded the rights of persons who have been institutionalizedfor treatment of mental illness. The rights have included dueprocess in commitment proceedings, provision of services, andtreatment in the least restrictive environment. Federal courtshave based their decisions on federal statutes and constitutionalprinciples of due process, equal protection, and protectionfrom harm. More recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court haseffectively closed the federal courts as a forum for advancingthe rights of the mentally disabled. Federal courts must, inessence, defer to the states for decisions about treatment ofthe mentally disabled. State courts may decide what servicesare required under state law, while state mental health officialsmay decide specific treatment questions for individual patients.Consequently, advocates for the mentally disabled are turningto state courts to advance client rights. In 1984 two significantcases decided by the New York State Court of Appeals have thepotential for significantly expanding the rights of the mentallydisabled.     

The Burger Court and Younger Abstention: Enhancing the Role of State Courts in Constitutional Adjudication

An important determinant of federal balance is the degree ofstate court authority to decide federal constitutional issues.This study traces the development of the Younger abstentiondoctrine, one of the primary vehicles by which the Burger Courtrestricted federal court jurisdiction and enhanced the authorityof state courts in constitutional adjudication. The Youngerdoctrine was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1971 for reasonsof comity and equitable restraint. Throughout the Burger Courtyears, Younger was expanded from an initial denial of jurisdictionto litigants seeking injunctive relief in state criminal proceedings,to litigants in cases "akin" to criminal proceedings, and thento litigants in cases "important to state interests." By relyingon Younger abstention, the Burger Court has reduced the roleof the federal courts as the primary enforcement of U.S. constitutionalrights.     

Federalism and the Strong-State/Weak-State Conundrum: Canadian Economic Policymaking in Comparative Perspective

The areal dispersion of power and constitutional division ofresponsibilities in federal arrangements are generally feltto limit the ability of federal systems to improve economicperformance. Examining Canada within a comparative framework,we assess "the federations as weak states" hypothesis as wellas the utility of the "strong-state/weak-state" model itself.Although some aspects of the Canadian federal system—namelythe combination of federal with parliamentary traditions andthe resulting adverse policy styles—inhibit the adoptionof effective economic adjustment policies, these features arenot necessarily found in other federal arrangements. Comparisonswith Switzerland, Austria, and West Germany suggest that, undercertain circumstances, federal power sharing may be conduciveto bringing about broad agreement on both goals and policiesamong national, regional, and local governments and major economicactors.     

Politics and Constitutional Reform in Canada: A Study in Political Opposition

Political opposition in a federal system is particularly richand complex, involving not only political parties and pressuregroups, but constitutionally sovereign governments as well.This article examines political opposition in a federation througha case study of the mobilization of opposition to the CanadianConstitution Act. Introduced by the federal government in 1980,the Act proposed a series of important changes in the powersof Canada's ten provinces. The resistance offered by a numberof provinces, the two opposition parties holding seats in Parliament,and a handful of interest groups were sufficient to secure significantchanges in the Act. The analysis presented here demonstratesthe key role of provincial governments—and especiallyof provincial premiers—as oppositional actors, while indicatingthe importance of the courts and intergovernmental conferencesas sites where political opposition expresses itself in a federation.     

The Limits of Judicial Desegregation Remedies after Missouri v. Jenkins

How far can federal courts go to remedy unconstitutional segregation?In Missouri v. Jenkins in 1990, the U. S. Supreme Court appearedto add new taxing powers to the existing tools already availableto the judiciary. By a 5–4 vote, the Court affirmed court-orderedtaxation to fund an elaborate and expensive desegregation planfor the Kansas City, Missouri, School District. This articleexamines that decision, how it developed, what it said, howit was received, and, most important, what its long-term significancemay be. We argue that the "new" judicial taxing authority sanctionedin the decision may not prove nearly as important as at firstanticipated In the long run, Missouri v. Jenkins may prove mostsignificant for the questions about desegregation remedies raisedby Justice Anthony Kennedy in a dissenting opinion. Those questionscould presage a more skeptical Court outlook on substantiveschool desegregation remedies, at least where those remediescall for additional public funding, as well as greater Courtdeference to the outcomes of state-local political processes.     

The Past and Future of the New Judicial Federalism

This article argues that the new judicial federalism, the increasedreliance by state judges on state declarations of rights tosecure rights unavailable under the U.S. Constitution, representsnot a return to an earlier federalism but rather something new.Although the basis for a state civil liberties jurisprudencehad long existed, the "discovery’ of state constitutionalguarantees did not occur until the Warren Court pioneered anapproach to civil liberties that state courts could emulate.This "discovery" has led to only intermittent reliance on stateguarantees. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that state judges willreturn to the total deference to federal rulings in civil libertiescases that characterized preceding decades.     

The European Community: A Balancing Act

The European Community has traditionally been analyzed usingtheories and concepts drawn from international relations ratherthan from federalism. This article emphasizes the balance betweenthe representation of territorial and nonterritorial interestsin the Community and argues that concepts drawn from federalismcan be useful in analytically understanding the Community aslong as the American model of federalism is not viewed as thenecessary federal referent. It describes the relative importanceof the territorial dimension within the major Community institutions—theCommission, the Council of Ministers, the European Council,the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice.The Court of Justice, it is argued, is particularly importantin giving the Community a "federal" contour. However, its methodof operation differentiates it in important ways from the Americanjudiciary. The role of territorial politics within the Communityis such that the Community's policymaking process, while unique,is certainly recognizable to students of comparative federalism.     

The Federal Judiciary and Northern School Desegregation: Law, Politics, and Judicial Management

Using a three-tier analysis, this article examines how the interplayof political and legal factors has influenced the developmentof school desegregation policy in Michigan and Ohio. The authorconcludes, among other things, that the district courts, theSixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court aresensitive to the influences of politics and legalism, but thatthe responses of the three kinds of federal courts are different.Recognizing a constitutional imperative to eradicate segregation,district courts have emphasized the participation of electedofficials and affected community groups in the remedial process.Because of isolation and low visibility, the Sixth Circuit hastended to pursue a more tenacious policy course than eitherthe district court or the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the U.S.Supreme Court has generally championed the cause of local officialsby attempting to balance the interest of eliminating segregationwith that of protecting the integrity of state and local decisionmakers.     

Human Rights in US Courts: Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

In Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (1980), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that victims of human rights violations could sue their oppressors civilly in US courts under an eighteenth century law now called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). Controversy raged over the Filartiga decision and the proper interpretation of the ATCA for 24 years. Then in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), the Supreme Court issued its first ATCA decision. This essay analyzes the effect of the Sosa decision on the development of human rights law in US courts. I find that while the federal judiciary is responding to some of the Supreme Court’s directives, lower courts still retain a great deal of discretion in handling ATCA cases.

---

Models of Post-Incorporation Judicial Review: 1985 Survey of State Constitutional Individual Rights Decisions

In 1985 state supreme courts issued the largest number of decisionsto date in which protections of individual rights were basedupon provisions of state constitutions. With increasing frequency,state high courts have held that certain constitutional minimumsof rights protection set by U.S. Supreme Court interpretationsof the U.S. Constitution do not satisfy more demanding preceptsof state constitutional law. Although much of this activityremains reactive rather than systematic, there has been a slightmove toward greater systematic analysis. Furthermore, statecourt decisionmaking can be understood in terms of five modelsthat reflect judicial perceptions of varying degrees of equivalenceor nonequivalence between rights provisions in the U.S. Constitutionand state constitutions. At the same time, however, the U.S.Supreme Court has clearly indicated an interest in monitoringthe individual rights decisions of state high courts, whilelower federal courts have begun to place greater reliance onstate constitutional law to preclude U.S. Supreme Court review.     

Public Opinion on U.S. Federal and Intergovernmental Issues in 2006: Continuity and Change

A 2006 trend survey found that Americans most often select localgovernment as giving them the most for their money, followedby the federal and state governments. African Americans aremost supportive of the federal government as giving them themost for their money; Hispanics are most supportive of localgovernment. As in many previous years, the local property taxwas viewed as the worst tax, followed by the federal incometax, state sales tax, and state income tax. Americans displayedreduced trust and confidence in the federal government; however,trust in all three spheres of government—federal, state,and local—dropped between 2004 and 2006, possibly reflectiveof the poor response of all governments to Hurricane Katrina.Analysis of surveys since 1972 reveals that there has been along-term decline in the public's support for the federal governmentand a corresponding increase in support of state and especiallylocal governments.     

Reactive Responses: The Complementary Role of Federal and State Courts

The recent revival of state constitutional law has contributedsignificantly to the development of a dynamic judicial federalism.While interaction between federal and state courts is hardlynovel, acknowledgments of reciprocity have occurred more frequentlythan in the past. The Burger Courts receptivity to state judicialactivism inaugurated an era marked by creativity as well ascooperation. Thus far, major departures from established practiceshave been limited to a readily identifiable and recurring numberof state courts. All the same, the case studies included inthis article range across a variety of factual contexts andexplore an impressive array of links, both explicit and implied,between the federal and state courts. A disquieting new requirement,introduced as the result of a 1983 Supreme Court decision, exactsof state judges an unambiguous declaration of reliance on independentstate grounds as the price of ensuring federal nonintervention.Whether judicial federalism will continue to flourish withinso confining a framework remains problematic.     

Judicial Review and the Supreme Court of Washington, 1890-1986

The literature on judicial review by state supreme courts suggeststhat from the beginnings of the republic until today, statejudicial review has shifted generally from what can be calleda restraintist departmentalism to an activist "new federalism."Since statehood in 1889, the Supreme Court of Washington hasreacted to constitutional challenges in much the same manneras the high courts of other states. Recently, however, Washington'sjurists have forged an independent course by applying the morerestrictive aspects of the state constitution to private andgovernmental intrusions into personal lives rather than relyingon the guidelines provided by the federal Constitution and theU.S. Supreme Court. The nature of this second "Golden Age" ofstate judicial review, because of its effect on federalism ratherthan the separation of powers, requires appraisal from a newperspective.     

Federal court outcomes in asylum-related appeals 1980–1987: A highly ‘politicized’ process

Federal court outcomes (both district courts and courts of appeal) in asylum-related appeals during the period 1980–1987 are significantly related to three political variables: the political party affiliation of the President who appointed the judge or judges involved in an appeal, the nature of judicial constituencies, and the involvement of interest groups in the appeals. Court outcomes are not, on the other hand, significantly related to two contextual factors: geopgraphic region of the decisionmakers and the unemployment rate. The federal courts did not exhibit the bias of the immigration bureaucracy in favor of hostile-country aliens (aliens from communist, socialist, or leftist countries); nor did these courts favor aliens from European countries.     

Federal Intervention in the Management of Groundwater Resources: Past Efforts and Future Prospects

The role of the federal government in groundwater regulationis likely to increase over the next few decades. A combinationof events—including recent federal court decisions, pastfederal intervention in state groundwater utilization, the publicpronouncements by a variety of federal actors, and increasingconcern over the inability of states to control overdrafting—allsuggest that the federal role in groundwater management maybe increasing. These events are examined here, and it is arguedthat, without change in state groundwater management practicesto mitigate the negative effects of state competition for groundwater,federal intervention in groundwater management seems likely.