The U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Jurisprudence: Alden v. Maine and the Enhancement of State Sovereignty

Susan Gluck Mezey

Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol. 30, issue 1, 21-38

Abstract: In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence has shielded states from certain aspects of Congress's policymaking and enforcement authority. Through its interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, the Court has reminded Congress that its power to govern has limits. This article presents the major federalism cases of the 1990s, focusing on Alden v. Maine, the most important federalism decision of the 1998-1999 term. It concludes that the Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment and the sovereign-immunity doctrine, which has constrained the federal government's power to authorize private suits against states for violations of federal law, poses a threat to a fundamental principle of the rule of law: “where there is a right, there is a remedy.” Copyright , Oxford University Press.

References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/ (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:publus:v:30:y::i:1:p:21-38

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Publius: The Journal of Federalism is currently edited by Paul Nolette and Philip Rocco

More articles in Publius: The Journal of Federalism from CSF Associates Inc. Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().