So let us get this straight: the Obama administration thinks that when it comes to the manufacture of automobiles or pharmaceuticals in interstate commerce, it is critical to permit individual states to impose liability on design or warning-label decisions made on a nationwide basis, even when those standards are inconsistent with federal regulatory standards, but when it comes to individual state legislature decisions about local law enforcement, it is critical to enjoin that action to prevent a "patchwork" of differing state policies. Talk about upside-down federalism.
Obama administration rediscovers federal preemption
- The Ramifications of EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
- The Bond That Ties: A Case-Study in Federalism
- A better solution to prison overcrowding
- Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett
- Full Federal Pre-emption of State Consumer Protection Food Suits
- Krugman Confused About State vs. Federal Government
- The myth of the myth of voting fraud, continued
- The Defining Moment of the Presidential Debate
- Obama immigration policy rewards illegal immigrants over legal ones
- New Podcasts: Reactions to the Obamacare decision
- It's the Spending Clause, stupid!
- Two senses of federalism
- Winning the battle, but losing the war (for expansive federal government power)?
- A mixed bag, but ultimately an activist decision
- Roberts can be criticized, but he's no Souter
Center for Legal Policy at the