IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v52y2022i3p353-381..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The State of American Federalism 2021–2022: Federal Courts, State Legislatures, and the Conservative Turn in the Law

Author

Listed:
  • David M Konisky
  • Paul Nolette

Abstract

Contemporary American politics features intense political polarization and closely contested battles over the direction of public policy. Conservatives and liberals alike have used the many venues in the American federal system to try to gain an advantage. In this article, we suggest that a key feature of contemporary American federalism is the institutional advantage that conservatives have achieved due to recent shifts in the ideological conservatism of the federal judiciary and growing Republican dominance in state legislatures. We assess the consequences of these developments, focusing on efforts to weaken federal administrative agencies’ authority and discretion, challenge individual voting rights and institutional control over elections, expand conservative approaches to personal liberties in areas such as abortion, religious practice, and gun rights, and to preempt local policy authority. These developments have the effect of consolidating authority in the hands of Republican-controlled state governments and in some cases bringing about national-level policy changes via state initiatives, and with important implications for American society, politics, and federalism.

Suggested Citation

  • David M Konisky & Paul Nolette, 2022. "The State of American Federalism 2021–2022: Federal Courts, State Legislatures, and the Conservative Turn in the Law," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 52(3), pages 353-381.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:52:y:2022:i:3:p:353-381.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjac022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Flavin & Gregory Shufeldt, 2020. "Explaining State Preemption of Local Laws: Political, Institutional, and Demographic Factors," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 50(2), pages 280-309.
    2. Luke Fowler & Stephanie L Witt, 2019. "State Preemption of Local Authority: Explaining Patterns of State Adoption of Preemption Measures," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 49(3), pages 540-559.
    3. Lori Riverstone-Newell, 2017. "The Rise of State Preemption Laws in Response to Local Policy Innovation," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 47(3), pages 403-425.
    4. Carol S Weissert & Matthew J Uttermark & Kenneth R Mackie & Alexandra Artiles, 2021. "Governors in Control: Executive Orders, State-Local Preemption, and the COVID-19 Pandemic," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 51(3), pages 396-428.
    5. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & Paul Nolette, 2023. "The State of American Federalism 2022–2023: Escalating Culture Wars in the States," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 53(3), pages 325-348.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McDonald, Bruce D. III & Goodman, Christopher B & Hatch, Megan E., 2020. "Tensions in State-Local Intergovernmental Response to Emergencies: The Case of COVID-19," OSF Preprints cnzt6, Center for Open Science.
    2. Christopher B Goodman & Megan E Hatch, 2023. "State preemption and affordable housing policy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(6), pages 1048-1065, May.
    3. Rorie Spill Solberg & Stefanie A. Lindquist, 2006. "Activism, Ideology, and Federalism: Judicial Behavior in Constitutional Challenges Before the Rehnquist Court, 1986–2000," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 237-261, July.
    4. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    5. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour, 2013. "Kingmakers and leaders in coalition formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2021. "Issue attention on international courts: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 793-815, October.
    7. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    8. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "Strategic Judicial Preference Revelation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 113-137.
    9. Jule Krüger & Ragnhild Nordås, 2020. "A latent variable approach to measuring wartime sexual violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 728-739, November.
    10. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    11. Sarel, Roee & Demirtas, Melanie, 2021. "Delegation in a multi-tier court system: Are remands in the U.S. federal courts driven by moral hazard?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    12. Benjamin H. Barton & Emily Moran, 2013. "Measuring Diversity on the Supreme Court with Biodiversity Statistics," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-34, March.
    13. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    14. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2021. "Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 981-1019, July.
    15. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Roll Call Data and Ideal Points," Wallis Working Papers WP42, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
    16. Monica Hubbard & Luke Fowler, 2021. "Institutional Collective Action on Drugs: Functional and Vertical Dilemmas of Unused Pharmaceuticals," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 76-96, January.
    17. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2015. "Hawks and Doves at the FOMC," CEPR Discussion Papers 10442, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Cindy Cheng & Joan Barceló & Allison Spencer Hartnett & Robert Kubinec & Luca Messerschmidt, 2020. "COVID-19 Government Response Event Dataset (CoronaNet v.1.0)," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 756-768, July.
    19. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    20. Crane, Harry, 2017. "A hidden Markov model for latent temporal clustering with application to ideological alignment in the U.S. Supreme Court," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 19-36.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:52:y:2022:i:3:p:353-381.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.