The End of the Federalism Five? Statutory Interpretation and the Roberts Court

Christopher Shortell

Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 2012, vol. 42, issue 3, 516-537

Abstract: The replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor with John Roberts and Samuel Alito led to much uncertainty about the future of federalism jurisprudence. Six terms in to the Roberts Court, clear patterns of difference from the Rehnquist Court are emerging. My analysis of all federalism decisions by the high court since John Roberts was sworn in as chief justice in 2005 demonstrates that the Federalism Five bloc of justices is no longer the dominant paradigm for understanding responses to federalism cases. The emphasis on preemption cases and the increased role of statutory rather than constitutional interpretation have led to shifting coalitions and a different course for federalism cases on the Roberts Court, although there are legitimate questions about whether this will continue. Copyright 2012, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2012
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjs016 (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:42:y:2012:i:3:p:516-537

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 ().