Entry
Reader's guide
Entries A-Z
Subject index
Federalism
The term federalism refers to the division of power and responsibility between the states and the national government. Implicit in the structure of the U.S. Constitution and reaffirmed by the Tenth Amendment, the principles of dual sovereignty, commonly called federalism, limit the powers of the national government in three significant ways. First, as the Eleventh Amendment confirms, the states retain their immunity from lawsuits. Second, dual sovereignty limits Congress's power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, federalism limits Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce.
Federalism is enormously important for state-supported higher education institutions, which are generally considered to be state actors or arms of the state for constitutional and legal purposes. Thus, federalism limits the ability of the national government to interfere with state universities and preserves their power to make to certain policy decisions. The origins of federalism in the Constitution and early court rulings are discussed in this entry along with the limitations the U.S. Supreme Court has placed on Congress's power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and to regulate interstate commerce.
Background
In The Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote, “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments.” Madison believed that by dividing sovereignty between the national government and the states, the Constitution ensured that “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” Thus, as the Supreme Court said in Texas v. White (1868),
The preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National Government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.
According to a more recent decision of the Supreme Court, this division of sovereignty between the states and the national government “is a defining feature of our Nation's constitutional blueprint” (Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 2002). The division of power between dual sovereigns, the states and the national government, is reflected throughout the Constitution's text, as well as its structure. The Supreme Court said, in Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991),
Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.
In other words, although the Constitution gives vast power to the national government, the national government remains one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. Indeed, “that these limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written,” according to the landmark Marbury v. Madison (1803) ruling.
Because the federal balance of powers is so important, the Court has intervened to maintain the sovereign prerogatives of both the states and the national government. In order to preserve the sovereignty of the national government, the Court has prevented the states from imposing term limits on members of Congress and instructing members of Congress as to how to vote on certain issues. Similarly, it has invalidated state laws that infringe on the right to travel, that undermine the nation's foreign policy, and that exempt a state from generally applicable regulations of interstate commerce.
...
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Affirmative Action and Race-Based Admissions
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Disability
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Faculty Issues
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
- Knight v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
- National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
- Perry v. Sindermann
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing
- Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- Urofsky v. Gilmore
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Finance and Governance
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Gender Equity
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Religion and Freedom of Speech
- Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
- Bob Jones University v. United States
- Healy v. James
- Hunt v. McNair
- Locke v. Davey
- Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri
- Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
- Tilton v. Richardson
- Widmar v. Vincent
- Concepts, Theories, and Legal Principles
- Academic Abstention
- Academic Dishonesty
- Academic Freedom
- Affirmative Action
- Catalogs as Contracts
- Conflict of Commitment
- Conflict of Interest
- Copyright
- Disparate Impact
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Educational Malpractice
- Equal Protection Analysis
- Ex Corde Ecclesiae and American Catholic Higher Education
- Fair Use
- Hate Crimes
- Intellectual Property
- Student Moral Development
- Tax Exemptions for Colleges and Universities
- Tenure
- U.S. Supreme Court Cases in Higher Education
- Zoning
- Constitutional Rights and Issues
- Affirmative Action
- Age Discrimination
- Bill of Rights
- Civil Rights Movement
- Disciplinary Sanctions and Due Process Rights
- Disparate Impact
- Drug Testing of Students
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Eleventh Amendment
- Equal Protection Analysis
- Federalism
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Faculty
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Students
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Hate Crimes
- Hostile Work Environment
- Loyalty Oaths
- Political Activities and Speech of Faculty Members
- Privacy Rights of Faculty Members
- Privacy Rights of Students
- Religious Activities on Campus
- Sexual Harassment of Students by Faculty Members
- Sexual Harassment, Peer-to-Peer
- Sexual Harassment, Quid Pro Quo
- Sexual Harassment, Same-Sex
- Sexual Orientation
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- State Aid and the Establishment Clause
- Student Press
- Title IX and Athletics
- Title IX and Retaliation
- Title IX and Sexual Harassment
- Unions on Campus
- Faculty Rights
- Governance and Finance
- Academic Dishonesty
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Boards of Trustees
- Catalogs as Contracts
- Cheating and Academic Discipline
- Collective Bargaining
- Conflict of Commitment
- Conflict of Interest
- Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
- Due Process Rights in Faculty and Staff Dismissal
- Equal Pay Act
- Extracurricular Activities, Law, and Policy
- Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
- Grading Practices
- Graduation Requirements
- Hazing
- Hostile Work Environment
- Loans and Federal Aid
- Personnel Records
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- Student Press
- Tenure
- Unions on Campus
- Organizations and Institutions
- American Association of University Professors
- American Association of University Women
- Association for the Study of Higher Education
- Boards of Trustees
- Community or Junior Colleges
- Education Law Association
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Historically Black Colleges and Universities
- National Association of College and University Attorneys
- National Collegiate Athletic Association
- Proprietary or For-Profit Colleges and Universities
- Religious Colleges and Universities
- Single-Sex Colleges
- U.S. Department of Education
- Unions on Campus
- Primary Sources: Excerpts from Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases
- Berea College v. Kentucky
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
- Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
- Cannon v. University of Chicago
- DeFunis v. Odegaard
- Gratz v. Bollinger
- Grove City College v. Bell
- Grutter v. Bollinger
- Healy v. James
- Hunt v. McNair
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
- Locke v. Davey
- McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
- Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
- National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
- Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri
- Perry v. Sindermann
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
- Southeastern Community College v. Davis
- Sweatt v. Painter
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- Tilton v. Richardson
- Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
- United States v. Virginia
- University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Religion and Freedom of Speech
- Academic Freedom
- Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Ex Corde Ecclesiae and American Catholic Higher Education
- Federalism
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Religious Activities on Campus
- Religious Colleges and Universities
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- State Aid and the Establishment Clause
- Student Press
- Statutes
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
- Clery Act
- Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Equal Educational Opportunities Act
- Equal Pay Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
- Higher Education Act
- Immigration Reform and Control Act
- Morrill Acts
- National Labor Relations Act
- Rehabilitation Act, Section 504
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- Stafford Act
- Tax Exemptions for Colleges and Universities
- Title IX and Athletics
- Title IX and Retaliation
- Title IX and Sexual Harassment
- Title VI
- Title VII
- Student Rights and Welfare
- Academic Dishonesty
- Assistive Technology
- Cheating and Academic Discipline
- Cyberbullying
- Disciplinary Sanctions and Due Process Rights
- Disparate Impact
- Drug Testing of Students
- Extracurricular Activities, Law, and Policy
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Students
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Grading Practices
- Graduation Requirements
- Hate Crimes
- Hazing
- Loans and Federal Aid
- Privacy Rights of Students
- Sexual Harassment of Students by Faculty Members
- Sexual Harassment, Peer-to-Peer
- Sexual Harassment, Quid Pro Quo
- Sexual Harassment, Same-Sex
- Sexual Orientation
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- Student Moral Development
- Student Press
- Student Suicides
- Student Teachers, Rights of
- Video Surveillance
- Technology
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
-
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches