Navigation

Progressive Federalism

The Supreme Court and the States 2008-2009: Trend Defending State Authority Emerges this Term

Whether out of circumstance or an emerging trend, where state authority was at issue, this term the U.S. Supreme Court overwhelmingly deferred to state decision makers-- a significant reveral from last year. 

Their Secessionist "States Rights" versus Our Collaborative Federalism

There have recently been a wave of rightwing resolutions asserting "state sovereignty," with Governor Rick Perry even evoking Civil War-era rhetoric about Texas having the right to secede from the United States. 

States' Victory Against Preemption - FDA Approval Does not Block State Tort Claims Against Drug Makers

In a much anticipated decision, Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision upheld states' right to hold the drug industry accountable for not adequately warning consumers and prescribers of a drug's impact.  The pharmaceutical industry had argued that Federal Drug Administration approval of a drug's warning label pre-empts state claims of injury based on the failure by a company to warn of additional dangers not covered by the FDA-approved label.  The court rejected this argument.

Restoring State Authority: An Agenda to Restrict Preemption of State Laws

For years, states have increasingly seen their hands tied by a federal government declaring that preemption voids state consumer, environmental and labor rights laws.  The Bush administration in particular used its regulatory authority aggressively to block state law after state law.   

The results have been catastrophic.  Despite the myth that "no one saw the subprime meltdown coming," the reality is that thirty states enacted laws to rein in abuses by predatory lenders.  However, the Bush administration used its regulatory authority over banks to shut down most of those predatory lending laws in the courts. This is just the most dramatic example of how preemption allowed the federal government to enforce its own inaction on state governments at the behest of corporate interests.

Strengthening Progressive State Power Should Be Priority for D.C. Leaders

With conservatives losing the presidency and democrats controlling Congress, we are likely to see a significant redeployment of conservative political energy into the states.  There are still 33 state governments where Republicans control either a governorship or a legislative chamber, and other state political bodies are still controlled by conservative Democrats.  We are already seeing rightwing forces shift to state level policy campaigns.  In fact, multiple conservative commentators have begun to openly discuss that the states will be their key target in the next few years.

Supreme Court and the States: Business Wins, Voting Rights Lose, and a Mixed Bag on Criminal Justice

As the Supreme Court marches to the Right, corporate interests continue to thrive at the expense of state regulatory powers.  "This has been a very successful year for the business community," said Miguel Estrada, a Washington appellate lawyer who represents many key corporate interests before courts in Washington, D.C."  This session at the U.S. Supreme Court, as this Dispatch will highlight, had an almost uniform tilt towards business versus state regulatory authority.  In other areas like election law, the tilt was against poor voters who faced restrictions on their right to vote, though the term was a more mixed bag on criminal justice and other issues before the Court.

State Session Roundups: MD, WV, IN, GA, KY & ID

State Session Roundups: MD, WV, IN, GA, KY & ID

Monday, April 21st, 2008

http://www.progressivestates.o