Last updated 6 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
America runs on a productive friction built into the Constitution between states and Washington. This tension shapes everything from the marijuana dispensary on your corner to whether your kids can carry guns to school.
The founding fathers created this system on purpose. They wanted states powerful enough to resist federal tyranny but a national government strong enough to prevent the chaos that nearly destroyed the country under the Articles of Confederation. What they built was federalism—a system where both levels of government hold real power and constantly jostle for position.
This is a feature, not a bug. The ongoing battles between state and federal authority reflect a living constitution that adapts to new challenges rather than breaking under pressure.
What We’re Really Fighting About
State Sovereignty: The Right to Rule Yourself
State sovereignty means states get to make their own rules about local matters. It’s rooted in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not given to Washington for the states and the people.
In practice, this means Texas can execute criminals while Massachusetts abolishes the death penalty. California can mandate solar panels on new homes while Wyoming focuses on coal. States run their own courts, police forces, schools, and elections according to their own priorities and values.
But American states aren’t sovereign like France or Japan. They can’t declare war, print money, or negotiate treaties with Mexico. They’re more like powerful provinces that gave up certain powers to join a larger union while keeping control over everything else.
The key word is “reserved.” States didn’t get these powers from Washington—they kept them when they created the federal government. This distinction matters because it means states are the default authority unless the Constitution specifically says otherwise.
Federal Supremacy: When Washington Wins
Federal supremacy is the constitutional principle that makes federal law the “supreme Law of the Land” when it conflicts with state law. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI puts federal law, the Constitution, and treaties at the top of America’s legal hierarchy.
This doesn’t mean Washington can do whatever it wants. Federal laws only trump state laws when Congress is acting within its constitutional powers. An unconstitutional federal law carries no more weight than a state law that violates the Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause creates order in a system that could otherwise produce legal chaos. Without it, you might be legal in California but a criminal in Nevada for the same action, with no way to resolve the conflict.
When federal and state laws clash, federal courts typically apply the doctrine of preemption. If Congress intended to occupy a particular area of law, or if it’s impossible to follow both federal and state rules, the federal law wins.
Shared Territory: Where Both Levels Govern
Many areas involve both federal and state authority. Both can tax you, build roads, establish courts, and borrow money. This creates opportunities for cooperation but also potential for conflict.
When conflicts arise in these shared areas, the Supremacy Clause kicks in. Valid federal law beats conflicting state law. But determining what’s “valid” and what constitutes a real “conflict” keeps lawyers and judges busy.
The Constitutional Blueprint
Powers Divided
The Constitution splits authority through several key provisions that define who can do what:
Enumerated Powers in Article I, Section 8 list what Congress can do. These include collecting taxes, regulating interstate commerce, coining money, declaring war, and establishing post offices. The Necessary and Proper Clause lets Congress pass laws needed to carry out these explicit powers.
Reserved Powers under the Tenth Amendment include everything not given to the federal government or prohibited to states. Education, local government, intrastate commerce, public safety, and most criminal law fall into this category.
The Supremacy Clause establishes the pecking order when valid federal and state laws conflict.
This division isn’t perfectly clear-cut. The Supreme Court has spent over two centuries interpreting what “interstate commerce” means or what laws are “necessary and proper” to carry out federal powers. These interpretations shift over time as new justices bring different philosophies to the bench.
The Framers’ Compromise
The Constitution emerged from the failure of the Articles of Confederation, which created a national government too weak to function effectively. States acted like independent countries, printing their own money and taxing goods from neighboring states.
James Madison and other founders sought a middle path that would create effective national authority while preserving state power where it made sense. The Federalist Papers argued this balanced approach would prevent tyranny while enabling effective governance.
The result was “dual sovereignty”—two levels of government, each supreme in its own sphere, but operating within a single constitutional framework.
| Exclusive Federal Powers | Exclusive State Powers | Concurrent Powers |
|---|---|---|
| Coin money | Conduct elections | Levy taxes |
| Regulate interstate commerce | Establish local governments | Make and enforce laws |
| Declare war | Regulate intrastate commerce | Borrow money |
| Conduct foreign affairs | Public safety and health | Charter banks |
| Establish post offices | Manage education | Establish courts |
| Immigration and naturalization | Issue licenses | Build infrastructure |
| Control federal property | Property rights | Eminent domain |
How the Balance Has Shifted
Early Years: States vs. Nation
The early republic operated under “dual federalism”—the idea that federal and state governments were separate and equal partners, each supreme in its own clearly defined sphere. This “layer cake” approach kept federal and state authority distinct.
Even then, the Supreme Court began expanding federal power. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Congress could create a national bank and states couldn’t tax it. The decision established the principle that federal institutions were immune from state interference.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) gave Congress broad power to regulate interstate commerce, striking down New York’s steamboat monopoly. These early cases set precedents that would later support massive expansions of federal authority.
Civil War: Federal Power Wins
The Civil War settled the question of federal supremacy permanently. States couldn’t leave the Union or nullify federal laws they didn’t like. The Union victory established that federal authority ultimately trumped state resistance.
Reconstruction brought the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which banned slavery, guaranteed citizenship and equal protection, and prohibited racial discrimination in voting. These amendments gave Congress new power to protect individual rights against state governments.
The commitment to federal civil rights enforcement faded after 1877, and the Supreme Court narrowed these amendments’ scope. But the precedent remained: the federal government could override states to protect constitutional rights.
New Deal: Washington Expands
The Great Depression overwhelmed state governments and created demand for national solutions. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs dramatically expanded federal involvement in economic regulation, social welfare, and job creation.
Initially, the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal laws as exceeding federal authority. But by the late 1930s, the Court began interpreting the Commerce Clause broadly enough to allow federal regulation of activities that had previously been considered purely local.
This shift marked the transition from dual federalism to “cooperative federalism”—a “marble cake” approach where federal and state responsibilities became intertwined. Both levels of government now collaborated (and competed) to address national problems.
Civil Rights: Federal Intervention
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s brought another surge in federal authority. When states resisted racial integration, the federal government intervened through all three branches.
The Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education (1954) declared segregated schools unconstitutional. When Arkansas resisted desegregation in Little Rock, federal troops enforced court orders.
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, asserting federal power to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and voting. These laws directly overrode state and local practices.
New Federalism: States Fight Back
Starting in the 1970s, a counter-movement called “New Federalism” sought to return some power to the states. Presidents from Nixon to Reagan to Clinton used block grants and other mechanisms to give states more discretion over federal programs.
The Supreme Court also began limiting federal power in some areas. United States v. Lopez (1995) struck down a federal law banning guns near schools, ruling that local gun possession didn’t substantially affect interstate commerce.
But this trend toward state power has limits. National security concerns after 9/11 led to expanded federal surveillance powers. The COVID-19 pandemic and climate change have renewed calls for national solutions to problems that cross state borders.
The Supreme Court as Referee
Judicial Review in Action
The Supreme Court serves as the ultimate arbiter in federal-state disputes through judicial review. When federal and state laws conflict, courts must determine which authority was acting within its constitutional powers.
This process isn’t mechanical. Constitutional language like “interstate commerce” and “necessary and proper” requires interpretation. Different justices bring different philosophies about federal versus state power, leading to shifts in doctrine over time.
The Court’s role is complicated by the fact that the Supremacy Clause only applies to federal laws made “in pursuance” of the Constitution. This means courts must determine whether a federal law is constitutional before deciding if it trumps state law.
Landmark Decisions
Several Supreme Court cases have fundamentally shaped American federalism:
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established Congress’s implied powers and federal immunity from state taxation. Maryland couldn’t tax the national bank because “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Broadly interpreted the Commerce Clause to include navigation and transportation. Federal law preempted New York’s steamboat monopoly.
Cooper v. Aaron (1958): Declared that state officials must obey federal court orders based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Arkansas couldn’t ignore desegregation orders.
New York v. United States (1992): Established the “anti-commandeering” doctrine, ruling that Congress cannot force states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs.
United States v. Lopez (1995): Limited Commerce Clause power for the first time in decades, striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act as beyond federal authority.
Printz v. United States (1997): Extended anti-commandeering to state executive officials, ruling that the federal government couldn’t require local sheriffs to conduct gun background checks.
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012): Upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate as a tax but ruled that threatening to withhold all Medicaid funding was unconstitutionally coercive.
Arizona v. United States (2012): Struck down most of Arizona’s immigration law, affirming broad federal power over immigration while allowing some state enforcement provisions.
How Federal Power Really Works
Preemption: When Federal Law Wins
Federal preemption occurs when federal law supersedes conflicting state law. This can happen explicitly, when Congress states its intent to preempt state law, or implicitly, when federal regulation is so comprehensive that it leaves no room for state involvement.
Express preemption is straightforward—Congress writes into the law that it’s taking over a particular area. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) contains a broad preemption clause for state laws affecting employee benefit plans.
Implied preemption comes in two forms:
Field preemption occurs when federal regulation is so pervasive that Congress clearly intended to occupy the entire field. Immigration law is a classic example—federal control is so comprehensive that states have little room to operate.
Conflict preemption happens when you can’t comply with both federal and state law simultaneously, or when state law interferes with federal objectives.
Courts generally presume against preemption, especially in areas traditionally governed by states like health and safety. Federal law won’t be found to supersede state law unless Congress clearly intended it.
The Power of the Purse
Federal grants give Washington enormous influence over state policy, even in areas where it lacks direct regulatory authority. Congress can attach conditions to federal funding, effectively bribing or coercing states to adopt certain policies.
Categorical grants come with detailed federal strings attached. The federal government controls how the money is spent and oversees implementation.
Block grants give states more flexibility but still come with federal conditions and oversight.
This system creates complex interdependence. States become reliant on federal funding but must accept federal priorities. The threat of losing funding can be more powerful than direct regulation.
The Supreme Court recognized limits to this power in the Obamacare case, ruling that threatening to withdraw existing Medicaid funding was unconstitutionally coercive. But the line between permissible incentives and forbidden coercion remains unclear.
Federal Mandates: Commands to the States
Federal mandates require states to take specific actions, either with federal funding (funded mandates) or at their own expense (unfunded mandates). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires Congress to identify the costs of new mandates, though its effectiveness is debated.
The anti-commandeering doctrine limits federal mandates. Washington cannot directly force states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs. States retain some autonomy over their own governmental machinery.
This doctrine prevents the federal government from treating states as mere administrative subdivisions. Congress can regulate private parties directly but cannot command state governments to do the regulating.
Today’s Battlegrounds
Immigration: Federal Control vs. State Enforcement
Immigration has traditionally been a federal responsibility, based on constitutional powers over naturalization and foreign commerce. Courts have generally held that state laws interfering with federal immigration policy are preempted.
But states have increasingly tried to fill perceived gaps in federal enforcement. Arizona’s S.B. 1070 required police to check immigration status during routine stops. The Supreme Court struck down most provisions in Arizona v. United States but allowed the “show me your papers” requirement to stand.
More recently, Texas passed S.B. 4, which criminalizes illegal entry into Texas and allows state judges to order deportation. The law faces federal court challenges, but it represents states’ frustration with federal immigration policy.
On the other side, “sanctuary cities” limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. These policies create their own conflicts with federal authority, though courts have generally allowed them as exercises of state and local discretion.
Marijuana: States vs. Federal Drug Law
Marijuana policy creates perhaps the starkest conflict between state and federal law. The federal Controlled Substances Act classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug with no accepted medical use. Possession, cultivation, and distribution are federal crimes regardless of state law.
Yet dozens of states have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. This creates a direct conflict where businesses can be compliant with state law but still violating federal law.
Federal enforcement has been inconsistent, often relying on prosecutorial discretion to avoid confronting state-legal marijuana businesses. But the underlying federal prohibition creates ongoing problems for banking, taxation, and business operations.
The Biden administration has moved to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, which would acknowledge medical uses and reduce penalties. But this wouldn’t resolve the conflict with state recreational marijuana laws without additional congressional action.
Healthcare: Federal Standards vs. State Implementation
The Affordable Care Act created a major federalism battle over healthcare regulation. The law’s individual mandate and Medicaid expansion tested the limits of federal power.
In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress couldn’t use the Commerce Clause to force people to buy health insurance but could impose the mandate as a tax. More importantly for federalism, the Court found that threatening states with loss of all Medicaid funding was unconstitutionally coercive.
This ruling made Medicaid expansion optional for states, creating a patchwork where some states expanded coverage and others didn’t. The result is significant variation in healthcare access depending on where you live.
The decision established an “anti-coercion” doctrine that limits Congress’s ability to use spending conditions to compel state action. But the boundaries remain unclear.
Environment: Cooperative Federalism Under Stress
Environmental policy typically operates through cooperative federalism. Federal agencies set national standards under laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, while states implement and enforce these standards.
States can set stricter standards than federal minimums. California has historically received waivers to set its own vehicle emission standards, which other states can then adopt.
But tensions arise over federal preemption and the scope of federal authority. When the federal government is perceived as inactive on environmental issues, states may step in with their own regulations, creating a fragmented policy landscape.
Climate change has intensified these conflicts. Some states are implementing aggressive carbon reduction policies while others resist federal environmental regulations. The result is a patchwork of policies that complicates national climate action.
Why This Affects Your Daily Life
The Laws You Live Under
The federal system directly affects which laws apply to you. Criminal law is mostly state-based, which is why murder, robbery, and drunk driving are prosecuted in state courts under state law. But federal crimes like tax evasion, immigration violations, and interstate drug trafficking are prosecuted in federal court.
Business regulations vary significantly by state. Employment law, professional licensing, and commercial regulations differ across state lines. A business operating in multiple states must navigate different legal requirements in each jurisdiction.
Consumer protections also vary. Some states have stronger privacy laws, lemon laws for defective cars, or protections against predatory lending. Others prioritize business-friendly regulations with fewer restrictions.
Services You Depend On
Education is primarily a state responsibility, but federal funding and mandates significantly influence local schools. Programs like Title I for low-income schools and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act create federal standards that states must meet to receive funding.
Healthcare involves both levels of government. Medicare and Medicaid are federal programs, but states administer Medicaid and regulate health insurance markets. The result is significant variation in coverage and costs across states.
Transportation infrastructure depends on both federal highway funding and state maintenance. The federal government sets safety standards and provides funding through the gas tax, but states build and maintain most roads.
Public safety is mainly a state and local responsibility, but federal agencies like the FBI and DEA handle certain crimes. Emergency response typically involves coordination between local, state, and federal agencies.
Rights and Protections
The Constitution provides baseline protections for individual rights, but states can offer greater protections under their own constitutions and laws. State courts interpreting state constitutions have sometimes provided stronger privacy rights, free speech protections, or due process guarantees than federal courts.
But history shows that states sometimes fall short of federal standards, particularly on civil rights. Federal intervention has been necessary to ensure voting rights, desegregation, and equal treatment regardless of race, gender, or other protected characteristics.
The federal system creates both opportunities and challenges for rights protection. Multiple levels of government provide multiple avenues for protecting rights, but they can also create conflicts and inconsistencies.
Innovation and Experimentation
States serve as “laboratories of democracy,” experimenting with different approaches to social and economic problems. Successful innovations can spread to other states or be adopted nationally.
Massachusetts health care reform in 2006 became a model for the federal Affordable Care Act. Same-sex marriage began in a few states before becoming a national right. Marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform, and climate policies often start at the state level.
This experimentation allows different communities to try different approaches based on their values and priorities. But it also means that rights, services, and opportunities can vary significantly depending on where you live.
Accountability and Representation
Understanding federalism helps citizens hold the right officials accountable. Knowing whether education, healthcare, or criminal justice is primarily a federal, state, or local responsibility helps direct advocacy and voting decisions.
The federal system provides multiple access points for citizen participation. If federal policies are unresponsive, citizens can focus on state and local governments. If state policies are problematic, federal action might provide a remedy.
This multi-level system creates both opportunities and challenges for democratic participation. More access points mean more opportunities for influence, but they also require citizens to understand a complex system with multiple actors and overlapping jurisdictions.
The Ongoing Experiment
American federalism remains a work in progress. The balance between state and federal power continues to evolve as new challenges test the boundaries of the system.
Current debates over immigration, marijuana, healthcare, and climate change mirror historical conflicts over slavery, civil rights, and economic regulation. Each generation must work out the appropriate balance between national unity and local autonomy.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both the strengths and weaknesses of the federal system. States served as laboratories for different approaches to public health measures, but coordination problems and conflicting policies sometimes hindered an effective national response.
Climate change presents similar challenges. Global problems require coordinated responses that may exceed the capacity of individual states. But federal inaction can lead to a patchwork of state policies that may be inadequate to address national and international challenges.
Technology creates new federalism questions about data privacy, artificial intelligence regulation, and digital commerce that cross state borders. These issues will test the flexibility of a constitutional framework designed for an agrarian society in the 18th century.
The genius of American federalism lies not in any particular balance between state and federal power, but in its capacity to adapt to new circumstances while maintaining constitutional limits on government authority. The ongoing tension between state sovereignty and federal supremacy reflects a living constitution that continues to evolve rather than a broken system in need of replacement.
This dynamic balance affects every aspect of American life, from the quality of local schools to the effectiveness of national responses to global challenges. Citizens who understand this system are better equipped to participate in the ongoing American experiment in democratic self-government.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
