IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v30yi1p21-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Jurisprudence: Alden v. Maine and the Enhancement of State Sovereignty

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Gluck Mezey

Abstract

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence has shielded states from certain aspects of Congress's policymaking and enforcement authority. Through its interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, the Court has reminded Congress that its power to govern has limits. This article presents the major federalism cases of the 1990s, focusing on Alden v. Maine, the most important federalism decision of the 1998-1999 term. It concludes that the Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment and the sovereign-immunity doctrine, which has constrained the federal government's power to authorize private suits against states for violations of federal law, poses a threat to a fundamental principle of the rule of law: “where there is a right, there is a remedy.” Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Gluck Mezey, 0. "The U.S. Supreme Court's Federalism Jurisprudence: Alden v. Maine and the Enhancement of State Sovereignty," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 30(1), pages 21-38.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:30:y::i:1:p:21-38
    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:30:y::i:1:p:21-38. 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.