Supreme Court, Federalism, and Public Administration

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 U.S. 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 policing this division of power, as it has the authority 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 it deemed to be excessive intrusions by the national government into state affairs. This has led to 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 checks and balances are in place to 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 examines recent Supreme Court cases affecting federalism and public administration, discusses how such decisions have affected the role of public administrators in the U.S. federalist system, and considers what effect these decisions have had on federal, state, and local government. Finally, it provides a biblical viewpoint for understanding these issues.

Recent Supreme Court Cases Affecting Federalism

Several recent Supreme Court cases have significantly affected 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, limiting the ability of state and local governments to regulate such speech. Finally, in Cooper v. Harris (2017), the Court held that North Carolina's congressional districting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, affirming the principle that states must draw electoral districts in a manner that does not discriminate against racial minorities. These cases carry 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 governmental divisions, 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 was tested in NFIB v. Sebelius, where the Supreme Court considered whether the Affordable Care Act was constitutional. The Court ultimately ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional but that other provisions were not. As Thapa et al. (2019) explain, federalism as expressed through the healthcare system is one of the many ways in which governmental power and its divisions 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, ruling that the map was unconstitutional and holding that partisan gerrymanders can be projected 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).

Impact on Public Administration

Public administration is a field that is always evolving, in large part due to the decisions made by the Supreme Court. In recent years, a number of cases have had a significant impact on public administrators. One of the most notable is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which struck down a key component of the Affordable Care Act. This case had major implications not only for healthcare policy but also for the way 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 public administrators draw districts in the future. As these examples illustrate, Supreme Court decisions 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.

Conclusion

Supreme Court decisions have had a profound effect on federal, state, and local government. Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between the federal government and the states, and the Supreme Court has played a major role in shaping federalism by interpreting the Constitution and enforcing its limits on the powers of the federal government. This has been the case throughout history, and in recent years it is no different, as the cases discussed in this paper have shown. Competition among levels of government has significant effects on public administration at federal, state, and local levels of power.

References

Blakeman, J. C., & Banks, C. P. (2018). The US Supreme Court, new federalism, and public policy. In Controversies in American Federalism and Public Policy (pp. 1–17). Routledge.

Lamb, C. M., & Neiheisel, J. R. (2021). Federalism and federal-state relations. In Constitutional Landmarks (pp. 181–221). Palgrave Macmillan.

Rose, S., & Goelzhauser, G. (2018). The state of American federalism 2017–2018: Unilateral executive action, regulatory rollback, and state resistance. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 48(3), 319–344.

Rubel, J. (2019). Is gerrymandering good for democracy? Compass: An Undergraduate Journal of American Political Ideas, 3(1), 2.

Thapa, R., Bam, K., Tiwari, P., Sinha, T. K., & Dahal, S. (2019). Implementing federalism in the health system of Nepal: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 8(4), 195.