1
CASE 2: SUPREME COURT AND FEDERALISM
Jamal R. Wallace
PADM804: Intergovernmental Relations and Public Administration (B01)
(Pending), 2024
2
CASE 2: THE SUPREME COURT, FEDERALISM, AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORS
Introduction
Fiscal federalism is a structure that supports the complex concepts and fundamentals of
governance in the United States. The Supreme Court is the highest federal judiciary court in the
United States and makes decisions that are pivotal to the direction of public administrations and
the financial responsibilities between local, state, and federal governments for the intricacies of
federalism. This Court has made decisions on issues contributing to the new judicial federalism's
Constitution (Wise, 2001). The political structure of the Supreme Court is essential because this
Court has made the final decisions on appeals submitted from the lower federal courts. The
Supreme Court's authority allows them to make changes to improve the factors affecting
federalism in the United States. A factor that the Supreme Court has taken the initiative on to
help federalism in the United States is preventing individual states or federal governments from
overstepping their respective jurisdictions on some issues. Through taking specific actions on
this factor, the Supreme Court has been able to prevent the states from getting involved when it
comes to creating new industries designed to help increase revenue. Since the Supreme Court has
re-entered the arena that many have thought it had abandoned, the Court has been able to
interpret the Constitution and what it says about the respective powers of the federal and state
governments (Wise, 2001). With the recent Supreme Court decisions, most justices want to fill
out their federalism doctrine.
The Supreme Court emphasizes federalism based on the different dynamics in society,
the memberships that change in the Court, and the reactions to the Supreme Court's decisions
(Wise, 2021). Since the Court recognizes the principle of concurrent powers, this helps the
3
federal, state, and local governments enact laws that help regulate individuals and overcome
future challenges. Through judicial reviews, decision-making, and interpretation of constitutional
laws, the Supreme Court has laid out a few principles and a framework that regulate the federal
and state governments. This framework, along with the principles, pronounces that the federal
government may not direct state legislature to enact specific legislation or to order state officers
to carry out federal policies (Wise, 2021). The Supreme Court's decisions constantly affect
federalism in the United States; however, the decisions of the Court also protect the states while
ensuring the accountability of the government to the public. These decisions reconfigure that
boundaries, policy implementation, and adaptability of public administrators.
Recent Supreme Court Cases Affecting Federalism
A recent Supreme Court case that is affecting federalism and public administration is the
United States v. Texas, where the Supreme Court decided to reverse the decision of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. One issue that was presented in this case
was whether or not the state governments had the power to challenge the executive branch’s
immigration enforcement. Since federalism is a model about the separation of powers, this model
also limits the judicial branch from controlling how the executive branch enforces laws. The
problem from this case started when the Department of Homeland Security and Texas made an
agreement on immigration because both parities had an invested interest in the matter. This
agreement stated that Texas will “provide information and assistance to help DHS perform its
border security, legal immigration, immigration enforcement, and national security missions in
exchange for DHS’s commitment to consult and consider Texas’s views ("UNITED STATES
ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL," 2022). This agreement would encompass decisions that were based
on staffing issues, procedures, as well as federal enforcement priorities. However, there were
4
issues with this agreement because states, the states would be responsible for the costs that would
come with the arrest and removal of noncitizens from the United States.
Since, the state of Texas was the one incurring the cost for immigration due to the
Executives branch’s failure to meet statutory mandates the state of Texas decided to sue based on
the costs that were incurred. There also was the issue that Texas was trying to challenge the
guidance that Department of Homeland issued in a memorandum of on September 30, 2021. This
guidance mapped out the guidelines of making deportation of noncitizens from the U.S. a top
priority, which was the driving factor behind the agreement between Department of Homeland
and the State of Texas. The second issue from this case was concerning the state’s power to
change the Department of Homeland Security’s guidance when it came to the matter of enforcing
immigration. So, the Supreme Court had to decide if the guidance violated the federal
immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act and this act was a federal law that
established uniform procedures for the federal government for issuing regulations and proposals.
The outcome from this case one it was decided that Louisiana and Texas did not have the
Article III. By the states not having Article III, they did not have the power or standing to
challenge the guidance on the enforcement of immigration that Department of Homeland
Security had issued. The challenges that are presented to the states regarding the federal
immigration policies will most likely require the Supreme Court to clarify further on the
standards for where the states stand. This is a result from the outcome of this case, because either
holds the precedents about how future policies will be dictated from policy makers. The court
case affects federalism it shows that the state must bear the consequences from the federal
governments in ability to enforce certain laws such as immigration. This will create more discord
among public administrations because the state government is reflection of how the federal
5
government enforces and implements policy and regulations. This case in particular shows how
federalism can be undermined, which makes it more difficult for public administrators in a
public administration to due their job, which is defend the vital interest of their people.
Another recent Supreme Court case that affects federalism as well as public
administration is the case Loper Bright EnterprisesBv.BRaimondo. This case ruling by the
Supreme Court challenged the Chevron deference doctrine along with the applications from the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This case affects federalism
and public administration because it shows whether or not a federal court may or may not defer
to a federal agency’s interpretations of a statute. This issue from this case consolidated with the
case of Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which dealt with the same issue as Loper
Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. An issue from this case is that federal agencies such as the
National Marine Fisheries Service’s try to enforce their interpretation of federal laws, in this case
it was laws that deal with federal fishing. National Marine Fisheries Service’s enforcing their
interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that requires fishermen to pay costs for the use of
compliance monitors on fishing boats caused issues for commercial fisherman.
The outcome of this court case resulted in the Chevron v. Natural Resource Defense
Council case being overturned. This case ruling required courts to defer to “permissible” agency
interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer even when a reviewing court reads the
statute differently (B("LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY
OF COMMERCE, ET AL," 2023). So, now the federal courts will not defer to any federal
agency’s interpretation of statues that are ambiguous. Also, the outcomes from this case also
show how the Supreme Court have been reducing federal agencies administrative powers over
the years. From decisions such as this, it reverses decades of regulatory precedents that federal
6
agencies have used to implement laws while exercising their powers. One important outcome
that was a result of this court case ruling was the it created a domino affect for the decisions of
other cases such as Jarkesy v. Securities Exchange Commission and Corner Post v. Federal
Reserve. This shows how the federalism in today’s time is moving towards restrictions on what
can be done at the federal, state, and local levels based what the situation entails. Even where
courts have intervened in the administrative process over the last forty years, the impact was not
universally viewed as constructive or positive (Bazelon, 1976).
Decisions and Role of Public Administrators in the U.S. Federalist System
The decisions from these recent cases affect the roles of public administrators in the U.S.
federalist system because it changes their responsibilities and what these public administrators
can in regards to enforcing or interpreting federal laws. The substantial changes from these
rulings have limited the public administrator’s discretion when it comes to policy execution. For
example, in the United States v. Texas, states such as Texas have to form their state policies and
guidelines to align more closely with what the federal government issues, even if will do more
harm to the Texas economy. Texas cannot fully accommodate the needs locally if the state has to
incur the changes of dealing with an issue of immigration. Public Administrators have to review
the administrative procedures that they currently have and adapt them to the changing landscape
for regulatory and legal issues that come from cases like United States v. Texas. The cases like
Loper Bright EnterprisesBv.BRaimondo, Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, and Jarkesy
v. Securities Exchange have diminished administrators’ responsibility’s by clarifying how
federal and state governments can impost legal standards. Administrators will need to guarantee
that the rights of the employees such as the commercial fisherman in the Loper Bright
Enterprises v. Raimondo are protected from the influence of Supreme Court’s mandates. The
7
Court’s decisions have triggered a new adaptation and innovations for policies from public
administrators, as a result of the changes to the legal standards. The innovations that these public
administrators take action on will help the policy implementation or enforcement align with what
the Supreme Court will decided when it comes to future cases.
A biblical viewpoint that is demonstrated with public administrator’s roles and
responsibilities, can be found in the scripture of Ephesians 1:4. This scripture states “According
as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love”(Cite Bible Reference). This viewpoint relates to public
administrators because administrators are entrusted with the duty of serving the public, and this
role carries a considerable degree of faith and responsibility (Agranoff, 2007). The context of
this scripture shows how administrators must executed the obligations that delegated to them
faithfully, but also with a sense of duty that is moral. The choices of God are a pure
responsibility to his followers and are viewed as scared. So, public administrators must execute
they’re with a level of commitment and integrity to support the welfare of their communities. An
administrators should serve with compassion, and love that reflects the directives that come from
scriptures such as Ephesians 1:4. This compassion, and guidance that is demonstrated with love
will help manifest in the decision making, when it comes to policy implementation and how they
interact with the general public concerning the principles of equity and justice.
Effect of Recent Findings on Federal, State, and Local Government,
The impact from the recent cases of the Supreme Court, highlight the importance of the
role of the Supreme Court when it comes to defining and clarifying the boundaries of federalism.
The cases also show how important the Court is when framing the authorities of different
divisions among the levels of government from federal, state and local. When the Supreme Court
8
announces verdicts on a broad scope of issues, it will always form the intergovernmental
relationships between the local, state and federal government. The Supreme Court does exert it’s
influence on the course of federalism in the United States on all levels. Since. Fiscal Federalism
in the United States encompasses a collaborative financial responsibility between the local, state,
and federal governments. The decisions of the Supreme Court are and essential factor to how the
roles and responsibilities of the levels of government are shaped. The U.S. Supreme Court
assumes a pivotal role in shaping federalism through its judgments, affecting power allocation
and public administration within the federalist system (Christensen, 2009).
Recent verdicts from the Supreme Court have had an impactful influence on
reorganization of how their authority and roles within the United States federalist system. The
influence on the federal, state, and local governments can be perceived as a negative or positive
based on the needs and agenda of the government levels as well as to the type of case that the
Court decided on. The local, state and federal government have seen the most adaptations for
their authority, duties, and responsibilities from these Supreme Court decisions. In the United
State v. Texas case, the state governments control over immigration laws was reduced and had to
conform to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security Guidance. While in the Loper
Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case the federal government could not enforce their own
interpretation of what they believe the federal laws should be for local governments. The
function of the federal governments roles and responsibilities are redefined based on what the
Supreme Court’s verdict is once its announced. State governments have met the same dual
impact as the federal government have as well with the verdicts of the Supreme Court.
The adaptations to make sure the levels of government can adjust to the legal altercations
can pose a challenge for public administrators. Although there has been substantial changes and
9
impact to how the levels government operate, there are also some benefits. For example, the
commercial fisherman benefited from the decisions of the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
which means that they have flexibility to decided how they will support programs that fall under
the federal fishery laws. This is why the consequences on local governments have been more
indirect (Wise, 2020). The local government are typically the ones that have to assume the
responsibilities for adapting to the legal changes and implementing policies. Ephesians 1:4
notates on the concept of predetermination and divine selection. This emphasizes about how God
has elected us before the world was established and to make sure it was done with love. That is
how this scripture can also be applied to the rationality of public administration and federalism
within the United States federalist system.
Conclusion,
The Supreme Court’s decisions have inevitably redefined what their authority is and the
influence that they may exert on public matters. Also, the Court has created a important impact
on the roles and responsibilities of the publics administrators, their discretion, and how they can
adapt in the United States federalist system. However, there are severe consequences that result
from the verdicts of the Supreme Court. These consequences push a domino effect throughout
the local, state, and federal governments. A key result of the domino effect is not only the
clarification of the powers of government, but the redistribution of power as well. This type of
influence that the Supreme Court has transforms the dynamics of intergovernmental relationships
and encourages the innovation for creating strategies that deal with policy execution. Besides
the Supreme Court role, the public administrators also play a role that is substantial because they
are the people that have to be able to translate the Courts directives. Translating the Court’s
directives involves putting certain measures in place and taking actions that will create tangible
10
results, while ensuring the governance of the governments is efficient and effective. Federalism
and the balance of authority is a sensitive matter between the government levels. The importance
of understanding public administration, and federalism with the Supreme Court decisions is
influential to the legal determinations.
11
References
Agranoff, R. (2007).Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations.
Georgetown University Press.
Bazelon, David L. (1976) "The Impact of the Courts on Public Administration," Indiana Law
Journal: Vol. 52: Iss. 1, Article 4.
Christensen, R. K., & Wise, C. R. (2009). Dead or alive? The Federalism Revolution and its
meaning for public administration. Public Administration Review,69(5), 920-931.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02041.x
LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET
AL. (2023). Supreme Court of the United
States.+https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
UNITED STATES ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. (2022). Supreme Court of the United
States.Bhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
Wise, C. (2020). Federalism theories and principles of the US Supreme Court—implications for
national and State Powers and Public Policy and Administration. Perspectives on Public
Management and Governance,4(2), 198-212. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa024
Wise, C. (2021). Perspectives on Public Management and Governance. Federalism Theories and
Principles of the US Supreme Court—Implications for National and State Powers and
Public Policy and Administration, 4(2), 198–212.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa024
Wise, C. R. (2001). The Supreme Court's New Constitutional Federalism: Implications for
Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 61(3), 343–358.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/977605
