State vs. Federal Government: Understanding Federalism

Federalism — the division of governmental power between a national government and constituent state governments — is one of the defining structural features of the American constitutional system. Unlike a unitary system, in which the central government holds all sovereign authority and may create or abolish subnational governments at will, the American federal system establishes two levels of government, each sovereign within its own constitutional domain. The boundaries between these domains have been contested since the founding and remain among the most actively litigated questions in American constitutional law. This page covers the constitutional foundations of federalism, the distinction between enumerated and reserved powers, the doctrines of preemption and intergovernmental immunity, the Commerce Clause as the primary engine of federal regulatory expansion, and the Tenth Amendment as the principal textual safeguard of state sovereignty.

Constitutional Foundations of Federalism

The Constitution does not use the word "federalism." Instead, the federal structure is built into the document through several interlocking provisions. The Preamble establishes that the Constitution derives its authority from "We the People" rather than from the states as sovereign entities — a departure from the Articles of Confederation, which was explicitly a compact among states. The enumeration of specific federal powers in Article I, Section 8 implies that the federal government may exercise only those powers granted to it. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it are "the supreme Law of the Land," resolving conflicts between federal and state law in favor of the federal government. And the Tenth Amendment makes explicit what the enumeration of powers implies: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This framework creates what scholars describe as dual sovereignty — a system in which both the federal and state governments exercise sovereign authority within their respective constitutional spheres. As the Supreme Court stated in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), the Constitution established "a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government" in which the states retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty."

Enumerated Powers: What the Federal Government Can Do

The federal government is a government of enumerated powers — it may exercise only those powers granted to it by the Constitution. The most important enumeration appears in Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power to:

Additional federal powers are established by constitutional amendments, including the power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment (abolishing slavery), the Fourteenth Amendment (guaranteeing due process and equal protection), and the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments (prohibiting various forms of voting discrimination).

The Necessary and Proper Clause has been the most consequential single provision for the expansion of federal power. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall held that the clause grants Congress implied powers — powers not specifically enumerated but necessary to effectuate the enumerated powers. Marshall's broad construction established the principle that Congress has wide latitude to choose the means by which it exercises its enumerated powers, so long as the chosen means are rationally related to a legitimate constitutional end.

Reserved Powers: What the States Retain

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states (or to the people) all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. This reservation encompasses the traditional "police powers" — the authority to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the public — which have historically been understood as belonging to the states. The principal areas of state authority include:

The Commerce Clause and Federal Regulatory Expansion

No constitutional provision has done more to reshape the balance of federal and state power than the Commerce Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Through a series of expansive judicial interpretations, the Commerce Clause has become the constitutional basis for the vast majority of federal regulatory activity.

The Evolution of Commerce Clause Doctrine

In Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), Chief Justice Marshall defined "commerce" broadly to include "commercial intercourse" — not merely the buying and selling of goods — and held that congressional power over interstate commerce is plenary within its sphere. During the Lochner era (roughly 1897-1937), the Supreme Court adopted a narrower view, distinguishing between "commerce" and "manufacturing" and striking down federal labor and economic regulations on the ground that they regulated local activity rather than interstate commerce.

The constitutional crisis precipitated by the Court's invalidation of New Deal legislation led to a dramatic expansion of Commerce Clause doctrine beginning in 1937. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937), the Court upheld the National Labor Relations Act, holding that Congress could regulate local activities that have a "close and substantial relation" to interstate commerce. In Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), the Court held that Congress could regulate a farmer's production of wheat for home consumption because, in the aggregate, such production substantially affected interstate wheat markets. This "aggregation principle" vastly expanded the scope of activities subject to federal regulation.

For nearly 60 years after Wickard, the Supreme Court did not strike down a single federal statute as exceeding Commerce Clause authority. That changed in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), when the Court invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act on the ground that possessing a gun near a school was not economic activity and did not substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court subsequently struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), on similar grounds. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), the Court held that the Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to compel individuals to engage in commerce (specifically, to purchase health insurance), though it upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of the Taxing Power.

Federal Preemption

When federal and state law conflict, the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal law prevails. The doctrine of preemption determines when a valid federal law displaces state law. Courts recognize three categories of preemption.

Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states that it preempts state law in a particular area. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144), for example, expressly preempts all state laws that "relate to" employee benefit plans. The scope of express preemption provisions is often the subject of litigation, as courts must interpret the breadth of the preemptive language.

Conflict preemption occurs when compliance with both federal and state law is impossible, or when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Court struck down several provisions of Arizona's immigration enforcement law on conflict preemption grounds, holding that they interfered with the federal government's comprehensive immigration enforcement scheme.

Field preemption occurs when the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive that it occupies an entire regulatory field, leaving no room for state supplementation. Immigration law is the most frequently cited example: the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government occupies the field of immigration regulation, precluding state laws that attempt to establish independent immigration enforcement frameworks.

The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

While federal law can preempt state law, the federal government generally cannot compel state governments to administer or enforce federal programs. This principle, known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, was established in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (holding that Congress cannot require states to take title to radioactive waste) and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (holding that Congress cannot require state law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers). The Court reaffirmed this principle in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. 453 (2018), striking down a federal law that prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling.

The Spending Power and Cooperative Federalism

Although the federal government cannot commandeer state governments, it can induce state cooperation through conditional spending — offering federal funds to states that agree to implement federal policy objectives. The Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) grants Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" through expenditures. The Supreme Court has interpreted this power broadly but has imposed conditions: the spending must be for the "general welfare," conditions must be unambiguous so states can make an informed choice, conditions must be related to the federal interest in the particular program, and the financial inducement must not be so coercive as to compel state compliance.

In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), the Court upheld a federal law conditioning 5% of federal highway funds on states' adoption of a 21-year-old minimum drinking age, finding the condition non-coercive. But in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), the Court held that Congress could not condition all existing Medicaid funding on states' acceptance of Medicaid expansion, characterizing the condition as a "gun to the head" that crossed the line from encouragement to coercion.

This model of cooperative federalism — in which the federal government establishes policy frameworks and funds them while states administer the programs — characterizes many of the largest domestic policy programs in the United States, including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), unemployment insurance, transportation infrastructure, and environmental regulation under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty

The Tenth Amendment — "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" — is the textual anchor of state sovereignty in the constitutional system. For much of American history, the Tenth Amendment was treated as a truism — a statement of the obvious structural implication of enumerated powers rather than an independent source of limitation on federal authority. In United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941), the Court described it as merely declaratory of the relationship between national and state governments.

However, the Tenth Amendment has experienced a revival in recent decades as the Court has shown greater willingness to enforce structural limits on federal power. The anti-commandeering doctrine is grounded in Tenth Amendment principles. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Court's holding that the Medicaid expansion exceeded congressional spending power was informed by the structural principle that the federal system preserves state sovereignty and autonomy. And in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. 453 (2018), the Court explicitly invoked the Tenth Amendment in holding that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures.

Contemporary Federalism Disputes

Federalism remains a living source of constitutional conflict across numerous policy areas.

Immigration: While immigration is a domain of federal authority, states and localities have adopted widely varying approaches to cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. "Sanctuary" jurisdictions limit their officials' cooperation with federal immigration authorities, invoking the anti-commandeering doctrine; other states have enacted laws requiring or encouraging state-federal cooperation in immigration enforcement.

Marijuana: Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 812). As of 2025, 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and 38 states have legalized it for medical use. This creates a direct conflict between federal and state law, with the federal government exercising prosecutorial discretion in choosing not to enforce federal marijuana law in states with robust regulatory frameworks.

Environmental regulation: The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) and the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) establish a cooperative federalism framework in which the EPA sets national standards and states implement and enforce them through state implementation plans. Disputes arise when states adopt standards more stringent than federal requirements, when the EPA withdraws delegation of enforcement authority, and when new federal regulations impose costs that states consider disproportionate.

Elections: The Constitution gives state legislatures primary authority over the "Times, Places, and Manner" of federal elections (Article I, Section 4), subject to congressional override. Disputes over voter identification requirements, early voting periods, mail-in ballot procedures, and redistricting practices all implicate the balance between state electoral administration authority and federal constitutional and statutory protections for voting rights.

The federal-state relationship is not static — it is a continuously negotiated boundary, shaped by judicial interpretation, legislative action, executive enforcement decisions, and the political dynamics of a nation in which governmental power is deliberately divided between overlapping sovereign authorities. The genius of the system lies not in the clarity of its boundaries but in the institutional mechanisms — judicial review, the political process, and the constitutional amendment power — through which those boundaries are defined, contested, and redrawn in response to evolving national needs.

References

Read Next

How to Get Help for Civics ANA › United States Authority › United States Federal Authority › Civics Authority › How to Get Help for Civics How to Get... Civics: Frequently Asked Questions ANA › United States Authority › United States Federal Authority › Civics Authority › Civics: Frequently Asked Questions...