IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v28yi2p25-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Consistency of the U.S. Supreme Court's “Pro-State” Bloc

Author

Listed:
  • Bill Swinford
  • Eric N. Waltenburg

Abstract

This article examines the bloc of U.S. Supreme Court justices that produced the “pro-state” decisions in United States v. Lopez, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, and Printz v. United States. We are concerned primarily with the bloc's coherence and consistency across other cases of interest to state governments over the 1994-1996 terms. The labeling of individual justices and the Court in general as “pro-state” depends in part on the cases subjected to analysis; the greater the inclusiveness of the list of “cases of interest to the states, ” the more the bloc seems to fray and the less coherent the Court's direction. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Bill Swinford & Eric N. Waltenburg, 0. "The Consistency of the U.S. Supreme Court's “Pro-State” Bloc," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 28(2), pages 25-42.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:28:y::i:2:p:25-42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:28:y::i:2:p:25-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.