IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v42y2012i3p516-537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The End of the Federalism Five? Statutory Interpretation and the Roberts Court

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Shortell

Abstract

The replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor with John Roberts and Samuel Alito led to much uncertainty about the future of federalism jurisprudence. Six terms in to the Roberts Court, clear patterns of difference from the Rehnquist Court are emerging. My analysis of all federalism decisions by the high court since John Roberts was sworn in as chief justice in 2005 demonstrates that the Federalism Five bloc of justices is no longer the dominant paradigm for understanding responses to federalism cases. The emphasis on preemption cases and the increased role of statutory rather than constitutional interpretation have led to shifting coalitions and a different course for federalism cases on the Roberts Court, although there are legitimate questions about whether this will continue. Copyright 2012, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Shortell, 2012. "The End of the Federalism Five? Statutory Interpretation and the Roberts Court," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 42(3), pages 516-537, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:42:y:2012:i:3:p:516-537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjs016
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shannon Jenkins & Douglas D. Roscoe, 2014. "Parties as the Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Impact of Local Political Party Activity on National Elections," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 44(3), pages 519-540.

    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:42:y:2012:i:3:p:516-537. 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.