The decision allows the Justice Department to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal grants to state governments, and goes against numerous other court decisions striking down the exact same policy.
My 2008 article on this subject is now available on SSRN.
The new lawsuits against the state of New Jersey and King County, Washington have many of the same constitutional flaws as the administration's other efforts to to target sanctuary cities.
How can prosecuting a black woman for slapping Jews in 2020 be authorized by the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery in 1865?
It will be published by Oxford University Press in April.
I took part in panels on these topics at the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention
The new federal ban on animal cruelty converts the Commerce Clause into a general police power.
The constitutional showdown over federalism and immigration approaches SCOTUS.
The latest in a long line of court decisions ruling against Trump's efforts to pressure sanctuary cities into helping deport undocumented immigrants features an opinion by two conservative Republican judicial appointees.
Prof. Brian Frye of the University of Kentucky Law School interviewed me on this subject, as part of his series of "Ipse Dixit" podcasts.
California has largely prevailed in the lower courts, and the administration's petition focuses on the part of the law with the strongest backing from Supreme Court federalism precedent. It's a case the administration deserves to lose.
The Drone Integration and Zoning Act seeks to expand private property rights and give localities more say in airspace regulation.
The court rejected the four states' claims that the cap on the SALT deduction enacted in the 2017 tax act violated the Tenth Amendment and "coerced" states.
religious organizations' right to discriminate in some employment decisions, and federal funding conditions preferring local agencies that help federal immigration enforcement.
Give the Republican Party control of the White House and Congress, and it's only a matter of time before Democrats discover the virtues of devolving authority to state and local governments.
This vote is "a hopeful sign that the harmful policies of marijuana prohibition will soon be a relic of the past."
Are we ready for a return to the "original meaning" of the Electoral College?
The book by political scientist Michael Dichio argues that the Court has done more to promote centralization than protect states, and is the most thorough analysis to date, of this longstanding issue..
The idea has some flaws, but would be a major improvement over the status quo. It also has much in common with a proposal for state-issued visas promoted by two Republican members of Congress in 2017.
The long shot presidential candidate wants booming cities to get rid of their restrictions on new development.
The MORE Act combines laudably broad legalization and expungement provisions with taxes and spending that may alienate potential Republican allies.
In this follow-up to my Washington Post article on the same subject, I consider whether current liberal support for federalism is purely opportunistic, and whether the political left is inherently pro-centralization.
Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Thomas Massie have introduced a bill that would cut federal airport spending while giving airports more freedom to raise their money.
The late Supreme Court justice was an inconsistent defender of civil liberties.
In recent years, many liberals have come to develop a new appreciation for constitutional limits on federal power. Whether the trend continues remains to be seen.
Should federal marijuana reform be tied to a broader "racial justice" agenda?
A solid majority of congressmen, including 41 Republicans, voted for a spending rider that bars the Justice Department from interfering with the legalization of cannabis for medical or recreational use.
Understanding today’s Supreme Court decision in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren
The decision is a complicated ruling that potentially sets a dangerous precedent for the scope of federal power under the Constitution.
The seventh post in the Volokh Conspiracy symposium on "Our American Story: The Search for a Shared National Narrative" (ed. by Joshua Claybourn).
The federal hate crime charges against John T. Earnest are redundant and constitutionally problematic.
My new book chapter is now available for free on SSRN. It desccribes how "voting with your feet" played a central role in American history, how foot voting is at the heart of much of the nation's success, and the recent rise of dangerous new obstacles to foot-voting. Part of a new book, "Our American Story: The Search for a National Narrative."
The ruling, written by a Republican-appointed judge, is an important victory for federalism.
The decision is likely to be unpopular. But it is the right thing to do nonetheless, as the law is unconstitutional. Not every evil must be addressed by a federal law.
But that might be news to some Californians, and even more of the state's elected and appointed officials.
My newly posted article explains how the administration's efforts have had the unintended effect of strengthening judicial protection for state autonomy.
"This isn't a partisan issue," the Utah senator says. "This is a constitutional issue."
Years after the state legalized medical marijuana, Maricopa County's top attorney served as a barrier.
The event features Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and myself.
William Barr does not like legalization but says Congress has to resolve the "untenable" conflict between state and federal law.
Respect federalism and leave the states alone.
My book chapter on this subject from the "Cambridge Handbook of Classical Liberal Thought" is now available on SSRN.
The judge was right to conclude that the individual health insurance mandate is now unconstitutional, but wrong to rule that the rest of the ACA is now unlawful because it can't be severed from the largely toothless mandate left in place under the 2017 GOP tax bill.
The federal case against the Charlottesville murderer illustrates how hate crime laws punish people for their bigoted beliefs.
The ruling is the latest in a long line of setbacks for the administration's efforts to punish sanctuary jurisdictions by withholding federal law enforcement grants.
But losing taught libertarians how to win
FGM is a horrible crime. But banning it is one of many issues the Constitution leaves to the states, much like banning rape and murder. Yesterday's court decision striking down the law was correct.
Policing such behavior, the court concludes, is a matter for the states, because it isn't authorized as a regulation of commerce or as necessary and proper to comply with treaties.
This modal will close in 10