Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is probably "yes." But that precedent might not hold, thanks in part to Clarence Thomas.
Absent Roe, current Supreme Court precedent likely gives the federal government considerable power to either restrict or protect abortion rights. But that precedent could potentially be limited in ways advocated by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an unlikely potential savior of abortion rights!
Some parts are both good policy and legally unproblematic. Others - particularly the mandate imposed on private employers - are legally dubious and would set a dangerous precedent if upheld by courts.
The mandate prevents bars states receiving federal funds under the Act from enacting tax cuts that are "directly or indirectly" offset by the grants.
Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of "Tax Mandate" Barring States Receiving COVID-19 Funds from Cutting Taxes (Updated)
In a careful ruling, Judge Cole concludes Ohio made its case, and enjoins enforcement of the mandate against Ohio.
Democrats Are Considering a $6 Trillion Infrastructure Plan That Has Little to Do With Infrastructure
For many elected Democrats, infrastructure is much more than roads, bridges, dams, and waterways.
New Developments in Ohio's Challenge to the Stimulus Bill Provision Restricting Tax Cuts by States Receiving Federal Grants under the Act
A federal court issues a ruling against the requirement that states receiving stimulus funds are not allowed to raise taxes. Meanwhile, the Treasury Department issues an "interim final rule" intended to limit the scope of the mandate - and protect it against legal challenge.
Biden Stimulus Bill Provision Targeting State Tax Cuts Might be Struck Down by Courts for Same Reasons as Trump Efforts to Pull Federal Grants From Sanctuary Cities
In both situations, the grant conditions in question were not clearly and unambiguously authorized by Congress.
Ninth Circuit Rules Against Trump's Diversion of Military Construction Funds to Build his Border Wall
The divided 2-1 decision is the first court of appeals ruling to rule on the legality of a key part of the funding diversion effort.
DC Circuit Rules House of Representatives has Standing to Challenge Trump's Diversion of Funds to Build his Border Wall
The opinion was written by prominent conservative Judge David Sentelle.
For the moment, the executive "memorandum" is long on rhetoric, but short on actual action. If it ever does lead to action, it could be yet another attack on federalism and separation of powers.
Trump's Threat to Withhold Federal Funds from States that Expand Voting By Mail Highlights Growing Menace to Federalism and Separation of Powers
A president who can attach his own new conditions to federal grants to states could use that power to undermine state autonomy on many issues - especially now that federal spending has been massively expanded during the coronavirus crisis.
Evidence Increasingly Indicates Trump's Ukraine Pressure Tactics Usurped Congress' Power of the Purse - and that he may have Committed a Federal Crime in the Process
If Trump used withholding of aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden, he both violated the Constitution and committed a federal crime. The evidence released so far strongly points in that direction, even if it is not completely definitive.
The ruling comes after a long string of losses blocking other administration efforts to deny federal law enforcement funds to sanctuary jurisdictions. The different result in this case is largely a product of the unusual nature of the program involved.
'Making Federalism Great Again'—My Forthcoming Texas Law Review Article on the Litigation Generated by Trump's Assault on Sanctuary Cities
My newly posted article explains how the administration's efforts have had the unintended effect of strengthening judicial protection for state autonomy.
Trump Administration Loses Yet Another Sanctuary City Case - this Time in the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
In a case brought by the City of Philadelphia, the court struck down a Justice Department policy conditioning federal law enforcement grants on assisting federal immigration enforcement policy.
The ruling is notable in underscoring how the Supreme Court's sports-betting decision in Murphy v. NCAA helps sanctuary cities.
The ruling is the latest in long line of defeats for the administration's efforts to cut federal grants to sanctuary jurisdictions. It breaks new ground by showing how the recent Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. NCAA helps sanctuary cities.
The US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirms a district court ruling against the administration's efforts to deny federal grants to sanctuary jurisdictions.