Conflict between Legal and Political Arenas
In the United States during the Trump Administration, a notable trend of uncooperative federalism emerged, characterised by state resistance to federal policies. This resistance was primarily observed when state governments, often led by Democrats, opposed the federal executive branch, which was led by a Republican president.
One of the key methods of resistance was through litigation and legal challenges. States frequently contested executive actions by the Trump Administration, aiming to block or delay policies they opposed. This included lawsuits against executive orders on immigration and regulatory rollbacks.
Another strategy was weak enforcement or refusal to implement federal policies at the state level. States would delay or dilute federal directives, effectively circumventing federal mandates.
In some instances, states filled the voids left by federal rollbacks by enacting their own regulations. This was seen in areas like immigration, environmental protection, and labor law, as states opposed Trump Administration initiatives or withdrawals from federal programs.
Combatitive political tactics, such as 'defiance', were also employed. This form of active resistance, short of secession or violence, was used to contest federal authority.
Blue states also challenged federal executive orders on issues like birthright citizenship and transgender athlete participation, framing their resistance as a new progressive vision of federalism.
The Trump Administration's use of contentious federal measures, such as invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants unilaterally and imposing tariffs, provoked state pushback, echoing historic confrontations over federal authority.
Opposition states also employed litigation to contest Trump’s demands, such as redistricting pressures in Texas, with Democrats actively engaging in resistance that is framed within legal and political forms of uncooperative federalism.
This dynamic illustrates a continuing pattern where opposition states resist federal policy through legal, regulatory, and political means, particularly in the confrontational context of the Trump presidency's administrative style. This resistance is part of a broader pattern of states asserting their autonomy when party control differs from the federal government, consistent with the concept of uncooperative federalism as described by scholars like Bulman-Pozen and Gerken.
The contemporary Supreme Court recognises the legal authority of national officials, but there is ongoing litigation about the President's ability to invoke executive power to shape state decision-making. The Supreme Court has developed interpretations of the Constitution that are state-protective since the 1990s, such as the anti-commandeering principle, preventing the national government from forcing state officials to enforce federal law, and the major questions doctrine, limiting the power of the Executive Branch and the "administrative state".
In the United States, much of this litigation involves the clarity of delegated power from Congress to the Executive Branch. The Supreme Court has declared that partisan gerrymandering is "non-justiciable," meaning there is no incentive for political partisans to adhere to forbearance in maintaining a liberal constitutional order.
The situation is prompting a wave of litigation due to the constitutional status of federalism in the United States, which protects state autonomy. The overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court ostentatiously embraced the importance of federalism and local decision-making, leaving states with a great deal of autonomy regarding reproductive choices.
In conclusion, the Trump Administration's approach to federalism was met with significant resistance from states, particularly those controlled by Democrats. This resistance was manifested through legal, regulatory, and political means, reflecting a broader pattern of states asserting their autonomy when party control differs from the federal government. The Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution have played a crucial role in shaping this dynamic, with the Court's recent decisions emphasising state autonomy and local decision-making.
- The resistance from state governments against the federal executive branch, particularly during the Trump Administration, was not limited to legal challenges and litigation, but also extended to strategies such as weak enforcement of federal policies, the filling of voids left by federal rollbacks through enacting their own regulations, and the use of combatitive political tactics, all forms of uncooperative federalism.
- The Trump Administration's approach to federalism, characterized by uncooperative federalism and confrontational politics, stimulated a wave of litigation that centered on the clarity of delegated power from Congress to the Executive Branch, the President's ability to invoke executive power, and the constitutional status of federalism in the United States, with the Supreme Court's recent decisions emphasizing state autonomy and local decision-making.
