IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v49y2019i3p379-406..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The State of American Federalism 2018–2019: Litigation, Partisan Polarization, and the Administrative Presidency

Author

Listed:
  • Greg Goelzhauser
  • David M Konisky

Abstract

Several themes characterize the state of American federalism. Increasing political polarization shapes preferences with respect to locating the vertical balance of power. To implement these preferences, the federal government is primarily relying on regulatory rollback and unilateral action. With Congress largely unable or unwilling to check the executive branch, states have pushed back on use of the tools of the administrative presidency through litigation. We address these themes through an analysis of voting and elections along with important policy developments from the previous year in the areas of immigration, health care, environmental policy, education, gun control, and criminal justice. We also review important federalism developments from the Supreme Court’s 2017 term.

Suggested Citation

  • Greg Goelzhauser & David M Konisky, 2019. "The State of American Federalism 2018–2019: Litigation, Partisan Polarization, and the Administrative Presidency," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 49(3), pages 379-406.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:49:y:2019:i:3:p:379-406.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjz014
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greg Goelzhauser & Shanna Rose, 2017. "The State of American Federalism 2016–2017: Policy Reversals and Partisan Perspectives on Intergovernmental Relations," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 47(3), pages 285-313.
    2. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Clark, Tom S., 2012. "The Supreme Court's Many Median Justices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 847-866, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amaral-Garcia Sofia & dalla Pellegrina Lucia & Garoupa Nuno, 2023. "Consensus and Ideology in Courts: An Application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 151-184, July.
    2. Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.
    3. Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & Paul Nolette, 2023. "The State of American Federalism 2022–2023: Escalating Culture Wars in the States," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 53(3), pages 325-348.

    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:49:y:2019:i:3:p:379-406.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.