The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"The Law of '. . . or Else'"
My review of Philip Hamburger's new book, Purchasing Submission.
Columbia Law School's Philip Hamburger, author of Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, has a new book: Purchasing Submission: Conditions, Power and Freedom. I reviewed the book for the latest issue of National Review.
Here is an excerpt from my review: "The Law of '. . . or Else'"
Buried deep in the House-passed "Build Back Better" bill are a set of climate provisions. One section in particular authorizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to award nearly $1 billion in "community climate incentive grants" for state projects that reduce transportation-related emissions. As is usual with such grants, there are strings attached. Authorized funding may not be spent on projects that increase the use of single-occupancy vehicles, and only states that have adopted FHA-approved "carbon reduction strategies" are eligible. Another provision goes further, instructing the FHA to "establish a greenhouse gas performance measure that requires States to set performance targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" (emphasis added). Lacking the votes to enact federal climate legislation that would authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate emission-control regulations, Congress is instead seeking to purchase state cooperation through fiscal largesse.
The BBB's conditional spending provisions are no anomaly. They are illustrative rather of a new way of governing: bundles of carrots, backed by sticks. Earlier this year Congress told states that received pandemic-related financial relief that they could not cut taxes. The executive branch does this sort of thing too. The Biden administration is telling health-care service providers that they cannot receive Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements unless they require employees to be vaccinated. But lest you think this is only one party's vice, recall that the Trump administration sought to persuade local jurisdictions to cooperate with its immigration policies by threatening so-called sanctuary cities with a loss of federal criminal-justice grants.
In Purchasing Submission, Columbia University law professor Philip Hamburger seeks to expose and analyze this "transactional mode of control" that is "increasingly . . . displacing" statutes and agency regulations and undermining constitutional governance in hidden ways. . . .
"Conditions can function as a mode of regulation that sidesteps the Constitution's regulatory process," Hamburger warns. Enacting substantive legislation and promulgating administrative regulations entail long and cumbersome processes, and the resulting measures are readily subject to judicial review. Conditional spending and other incentive-based policy measures are an alternative means to pursue federal policy, comparatively free from legal or political constraints. And that is the problem: "In seeking to regulate through the distribution of privileges, government sidesteps the avenues of power established by the Constitution and thereby threatens both constitutional self-governance and constitutional rights." Legislative compromises must be ratified in the open; negotiated conditions may be buried in a consent decree or nonpublic agreement.
The full review is available here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I look forward to reading Hamburger's book. With relish.
(More seriously; I don't see anything wrong with Congress achieving goals with a stick [ie, regulations imposed, as might be done via the EPA] or with a carrot [ie, financial incentives to states that work towards reducing carbon emissions, climate change, etc]. I do agree that these latter approaches should be done in the light of day, of course.)
Climate "change?" Just asking do you have a hard science or engineering degree or just a liberal art degree? Just asking.
3 Bachelor's degrees. 2 grad degrees. 1 law degree. But all in soft sciences and education (plus, JD/law, which is the softest of "doctorate" degrees imaginable, here in the States). So, I am definitely coming from a 'guy on the street' perspective, and not from a "I know better than you guys" approach.
(p.s. What does engineering have to offer, in terms of strengthening or weakening someone's argument re climate change? I guess there might be some specialties that relate to the subject. But I know a few structural engineers, and I would not trust their opinions on pretty much anything outside of their area(s) of expertise! Like: how many sheer walls do I need to put in, to support my new roof deck?) 🙂
This seems to be a complaint that regulation is being imposed by Congress, depriving the regulated of their accustomed complaint: "No fair, it wasn't properly delegated to the executive." Dastardly, I know.
This. Lamenting working around the well-ordered constitutional design that Congress can cast off its lawmaking to the executive, so he can speak words into existence that send you to jail (the dictate part of dictator) while they go hide from angry reactions to it.
"Too many for Congress to vote on!" Yet The People must obey them all.
"Takes the politics out of it." So long, democracy. That's the whole point to stop weasel behavior.
Yes, such a magnificent state of affairs.
"But lest you think this is only one party's vice, recall that the Trump administration ..."
And of course Trump was following Obama precedents involving ''or else's'' on Housing funds if communities tried to keep druggies and felons out of elderly housing [New Berlin, WI]. And before that there were Clintonite threats to Transportation funding if states neglected their mass transit demands.
The first book makes the great point that in the absence of Congressional approval, executive regulations are unconstitutional.
Nice state you have there. Too bad if it happened to run out of money...
Grifters is the best way to define who gets the money here. I'm sure all sorts of liberal art majors who couldn't pass Physics or Chem 101 will be given millions of dollars for their woke "climate" action firms getting massive govt contracts for "DIE" training on climate change impacts on POC and so on. Its all bs. The Federal Govt really needs to be shrunk to about 10% of its current size or just allow legal competing currencies..and this crap would all end in a few months. Throw in ending the Fed and the entire bolsehvik building comes down and we have the Federal Govt of the 1920''s which worked just fine
I've long thought the 16th and 17th amendments together resulted in a fundimental change in the relationship between the States and the Federal Government.
I think so, too.
The 16th gave the federal government a basically unlimited source of revenue that didn't require cooperation from the states, and worse, was easily manipulated to non-revenue ends because it was expressly NOT required to be proportionately distributed among the states. It's basically an open ended power to take people's money.
The 17th took away from states the last power that they had to restrain the federal government. Even if the states hadn't been appointing Senators in practice, until the 17th amendment they'd retained that threat to keep the Senators in line.
The two amendments utterly destroyed the previous balance between state and federal government.
And since the states lost their last influence over the composition of the federal judiciary, too, the federal courts started routinely ruling in favor of the federal government even where the Constitution was on the states' side.
I can't see fixing things without doing something about those amendments. But I suspect that if enough states did call for a constitutional convention to rein in the federal government, it would merely precipitate a constitutional crisis as the federal government refused to permit the convention to take place, or attempted to dictate the membership.