Federalism and Federal Agency Reform

نویسنده

  • Gillian E. Metzger
چکیده

This Article assesses three major preemption decisions from the 2008–2009 Term—Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, Wyeth v. Levine, and Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n—for their implications about the role of the states in national administrative governance. The Article argues the decisions are centrally concerned with using state law and preemption analysis to improve federal administration and police against federal agency failure. Federalism clearly factors into the decisions as well, but it does so more as a mechanism for enhancing federal agency performance than as a principle worth pursuing in its own right. The decisions’ framing of state law and preemption analysis as mechanisms for improving federal administration, however, stands in sharp contrast with other judicial precedents, in both the preemption and administrative law contexts, in which the Supreme Court has rejected efforts to use state law and court challenges to police federal agency performance. While the Article explores whether this conflicting jurisprudence can be explained by a distinction between direct and indirect efforts at federal agency reform, it ultimately concludes such a direct-indirect distinction is analytically and normatively unsatisfying. The Article then considers the possibility that the Court is instead assigning the states a special role to play in monitoring federal agencies. Although this account holds potential, the Article argues that the Court has so far failed to justify such an approach.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Implementing Federalism in the Health System of Nepal: Opportunities and Challenges

Nepal moved from unitary system with a three-level federal system of government. As federalism accelerates, the national health system can also speed up its own decentralization process, reduce disparities in access, and improve health outcomes. The turn towards federalism creates several potential opportunities for the national healthcare system. This is because decision making has been devolv...

متن کامل

A Response to beyond Separation: Professor Copeland’s Ambitious Proposal for “integrative” Federalism

Professor Charlton Copeland offers a wide-ranging, ambitious critique of what he characterizes as federalism jurisprudence’s dominant models of “separation” and “allocation” of authority between the respective federal and state spheres. Judicial resolution of federalism questions, he suggests, turns inappropriately and incompletely on the moment of a law’s enactment. This “obsession with the le...

متن کامل

Policy Capacity for Health Reform: Necessary but Insufficient; Comment on “Health Reform Requires Policy Capacity”

Forest and colleagues have persuasively made the case that policy capacity is a fundamental prerequisite to health reform. They offer a comprehensive life-cycle definition of policy capacity and stress that it involves much more than problem identification and option development. I would like to offer a Canadian perspective. If we define health reform as re-orienting the health system from acut...

متن کامل

A Precept of Managerial Responsibility: Securing Collective Justice in Instituational Reform Litigation

Institutional reform litigation confronts public administrators with troubling dilemmas, court directives often contradict the duties and responsibilities of public managers. Thus, the argument for judicial intervention is rarely straightforward. The authors argue that federal courts should refuse to hear institutional reform cases not only when federal court intervention would upset a state ad...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2010