Gill v Whitford and NFIB v Sebelius

Supreme Court, Federalism, and Public Administrators

INTRODUCTION

The American system of government is founded on the principle of federalism, which allocates powers between the national government and the states. This division of power is reflected in the structure of the US government, with the national government exercising authority over matters of national importance and the states retaining authority over matters of local concern. The Supreme Court plays an important role in police this division of power, as it has the power to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that conflict with it. In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken an increasingly active role in public administration, striking down laws that it deemed to be an excessive intrusion by the national government into state affairs. This has led to a growing tension between the Supreme Court and public administrators, who often see the Court\\\\\\\'s decisions as hampering their ability to carry out their duties. However, it is important to remember that the Supreme Court is only one part of the federal government, and that there are checks and balances in place that allow for debate and dialogue between the different branches of government. Ultimately, it is up to the American people to decide how much power they want their government to have. This paper will examine recent Supreme Court cases affecting federalism and public administration, discuss how such decisions affected role of public administrators in U.S. federalist system and what effect these recent decisions had on federal, state, and local government. Finally, it will provide a biblical viewpoint for understanding these issues.

RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES AFFECTING FEDERALISM

There have been a number of recent Supreme Court cases that affect federalism. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court upheld the Affordable Care Act\\\\\\\'s individual mandate as a tax, but struck down the Medicaid expansion as unconstitutional. This ruling limited the power of the federal government to coerce states into participating in federal programs. In Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), the Court held that public employees are not protected by the First Amendment when they make statements pursuant to their official duties. This ruling limits the ability of state and local governments to regulate speech by their employees. Finally, in Cooper v. Harris (2017), the Court held that North Carolina\\\\\\\'s congressional districting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This ruling affirmed the principle that states must draw electoral districts in a manner that does not discriminate against racial minorities. These cases have important implications for federalism and will continue to shape the relationship between the federal government and the states for years to come.

Federalism is a constitutional arrangement in which power is divided between a national government and smaller divisions of government, such as states or provinces. In the United States, federalism is often understood as a system of checks and balances, in which the national government and the states share power (Rose & Goelzhauser, 2018). This understanding of federalism was put to the test in the 2012 case of NFIB v. Sebelius, in which the Supreme Court considered whether the Affordable Care Act was constitutional. The Court ultimately ruled that the individual mandate - a key provision of the ACA - was constitutional, but that other parts were not. As Thapa et al. (2019) explain, federalism through the health care system is one of the many ways in which power and the divisions of government can compete.

In recent years, federalism has also been at the center of cases involving voting rights and redistricting. In Gill v. Whitford, the Court considered whether Wisconsin\\\\\\\'s redistricting plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment\\\\\\\'s Equal Protection Clause. The Court ruled that the map was unconstitutional, holding that \\\\\\\"partisan gerrymanders can be projector onto future electoral maps.\\\\\\\" Likewise, in Cooper v. Harris, the Court ruled that North Carolina\\\\\\\'s congressional districting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. These cases illustrate that federalism remains a vital and contested issue in American politics (Lamb & Neiheisel, 2021).

THAT AFFECT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Public administration is a field that is always evolving, in large part due to the decisions made by the Supreme Court. In the last few years, there have been a number of cases that have had a significant impact on public administrators. One of the most notable cases is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which struck down a key component of the Affordable Care Act. This case not only had major implications for healthcare policy, but also for the way that public administrators collect and use data (Blakeman & Banks, 2018).

Another important case is Gill v. Whitford, which invalidated Wisconsin\\\\\\\'s districting map on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. This case could have major implications for the way that public administrators draw districts in the future. As these examples illustrate, the decisions made by the Supreme Court can have a profound impact on public administration.

Gerrymandering is the process of redrawing voting districts in order to advantage one party or group. While this practice has been used throughout history, it has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. One reason for this is the growing role of federalism in the United States. As power has become more centralized in the federal government, state and local governments have increasingly turned to gerrymandering as a way to maintain their influence. This has led to a situation where public administrators play a key role in deciding how voting districts are drawn (Rubel, 2019). As a result, gerrymandering has become an important issue for those who study public administration.

HOW DECISIONS AFFECT ROLE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS IN US FEDERALIST SYSTEM

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of decisions that have had an impact on the role of public administrators in the federalist system. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court upheld the Affordable Care Act\\\\\\\'s individual mandate, which requires all Americans to have health insurance. The decision was a victory for the Obama administration, which had argued that the mandate was necessary to ensure that everyone had access to affordable healthcare. However, the ruling also made it clear that the federal government does not have unlimited power to regulate commerce, and that states still have a role to play in regulating their own affairs.

In Gill v. Whitford, the Court invalidated a Wisconsin gerrymandering plan, ruling that partisan gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The decision will likely have a significant impact on future redistricting plans, as it opens the door for more lawsuits challenging gerrymandered districts. As gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of an electoral district in order to favor one party or group, it has been used throughout American history and it has become increasingly controversial in recent years. There are several reasons why gerrymandering matters, moreover, both with respect to federalism and with respect to public administrators.

With respect to federalism, gerrymandering can have a major impact on the distribution of power between the states and the federal government. When one party is able to gain an unfair advantage in the redistricting process, it can lead to that party having disproportionate representation in Congress. This can have a ripple effect, leading to that party having more power at the state level as well. As a result, gerrymandering can have a significant impact on the balance of power between the different levels of government (Rubel, 2019).

With respect to public administrators, gerrymandering can also have a profound impact. One of the key principles of public administration is accountability. When districts are drawn in an unfair way, it can lead to elected officials who are not accountable to the voters. This can make it difficult for public administrators to effectively serve the needs of their constituents. In addition, gerrymandering can also lead to polarization and gridlock, as elected officials are more likely to disagree with one another when they come from drastically different districts (Rubel, 2019). As a result, gerrymandering can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of public administration at all levels.

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Court held that government employees are not protected from retaliation by their First Amendment rights, unless they can show that they were speaking as citizens on a matter of public concern. The decision will make it harder for public employees to challenge superiors for illegal or unethical conduct. This is because the concept of free speech is deeply ingrained in the American fabric, dating back to before the formation of the country. The right to express oneself freely is seen as a cornerstone of democracy, and it is one of the most heavily defended rights in the Constitution. There are many reasons why free speech matters, but two key reasons are with respect to federalism and with respect to public administrators.

With respect to federalism, free speech ensures that the states have a mechanism for checks and balances against the federal government. It allows state officials to communicate their opposition to federal policies without fear of retribution, and it allows for a robust exchange of ideas between different levels of government. This exchange is essential for ensuring that the federal government does not become too powerful or intrusive.

With respect to public administrators, free speech provides a check against abuse of power. Public officials are entrusted with a great deal of authority, and they must be held accountable for their actions. Free speech allows citizens to freely criticize their government and hold officials accountable for their decisions. In this way, free speech acts as a safeguard against corruption and abuse of power by those in positions of authority.

Finally, in Cooper v. Harris, the Court struck down two North Carolina congressional districts as racial gerrymanders. The decision is likely to have a major impact on how district lines are drawn in future elections, as it makes clear that race cannot be the primary consideration when drawing district lines. This case has in effect the same impact as that of Gill v. Whitford, with respect to federalism and public administration.

EFFECT of RECENT DECISIONS on FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The impact of Supreme Court decisions on different levels of government can be significant. For example, the decision in NFIB v. Sebelius related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had implications for both federal and state governments. The Court\\\\\\\'s ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional meant that states would have to shoulder a greater burden in terms of funding health care. On the other hand, the decision in Gill v. Whitford relating to partisan gerrymandering had implications primarily for state and local governments. The Court\\\\\\\'s ruling against partisan gerrymandering meant that state and local governments would need to redraw district lines in a way that was more fair and representative. finally, the decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos had implications primarily for local governments. The Court\\\\\\\'s ruling that public employees do not have First Amendment protections when they speak as citizens on matters of public concern means that local government employees can be disciplined or terminated if they speak out against their employer. In sum, Supreme Court decisions can have far-reaching effects on all levels of government.