© 1998 by CSF Associates Inc.
The Reconstitution of American Federalism? The Rehnquist Court and Federal-State Relations, 1991–1997
West Virginia University
This article surveys the U.S. Supreme Court justices' recent opinions on federal-state relations with a special focus the Court's 1996 term. Contrary to some claims, the Rehnquist Court is not reconstituting definitions of American federalism or the function of the Court in defining federal-state relations. What has occurred is a revitalization of a long-standing interpretive conflict about the deployment of government power within a legally constituted regime. Therefore, the debate in such cases as Printz v. United States, Camps New found/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison, City of Boerne v. Flores, and Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe is about how the political principles contained in the nation's foundational legal and historical texts, such as The Federalist and other records of the American Founders, ought to be interpreted by the justices. However, despite the limited focus on interpretative technique, the justices' debate about federalism still has important political consequences that will affect future discussions about congressional and state government power.