Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between the Supreme Court, federalism, and public administrators in the United States. It analyzes recent Supreme Court cases, including South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Shelby County v. Holder, and Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, to examine their impact on the balance of power between the federal government and states. The analysis scrutinizes how public administrators construe and execute these rulings, emphasizing their function in the US Federalist system and accountability in executing policies at both federal and state levels.
Furthermore, this article discusses the implications of recent Supreme Court judgments on federal, state, and local governments, underlining their effects on decision-making procedures, resource allotment, and intergovernmental relations. In addition, the influence of a biblical worldview on Supreme Court judgments has also been evaluated, with a specific emphasis on recent cases like Carson v. Makin, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and 303 Creative LLC et al. v. Elenis et al., illuminating the problem of legal interpretation and associated concerns. The study concludes by underscoring the significance of understanding these dynamics for effective governance in a federalist system.
Introduction
As the highest judicial authority in the country, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in shaping the balance of power between the federal government, state governments, and local governing bodies. The way public administrators interpret and apply the decisions of the Supreme Court can impact the political and legislative landscape. To understand the evolving dynamics of the US governmental system and the role of public administrators in ensuring effective governance, this study will investigate recent Supreme Court cases, aiming to contribute to the discourse on the intersection of law, public administration, and federalism.
Recent Supreme Court Cases Affecting Federalism
Federalism offers benefits like state experimentation and tailored governance, division of authority, and state competition. However, the federal government has gained significant power through financial resources and interpretation the spending clause. Restoring federalism requires returning to the original understanding of the spending and commerce clauses. Christensen and Wise (2009) argue that to understand Supreme Court limitations in public administration, it is necessary to examine constitutional pillars like the commerce clause, Fourteenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Eleventh Amendment, spending clause, and statutory interpretation. Exploring these areas can help public administration grasp the Court’s boundaries and principles. In the subsequent paragraphs, several of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions will be analyzed to support the arguments presented above.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
The legal proceeding in this example addressed the issue of online sales tax collection. The Supreme Court ruled that states could require out-of-state online retailers to collect and remit sales taxes, even if they didn’t have a physical presence in the state (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 2018). The decision overturned the previous “physical presence” standard set by the Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota. The ruling expanded state authority over interstate commerce and allowed states to impose sales tax obligations on remote sellers. This decision reflects a shift towards granting states more control over regulating economic activities.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
This case dealt with the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), specifically the individual mandate provision. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA but also limited Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause to regulate individual behavior. The judgment affirmed that the federal government lacks the authority to compel individuals to procure health insurance, yet it retains the power to enforce a tax penalty upon those who opt not to do so (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012). This ruling brought clarity to the extent of federal power and reinforced the responsibility of states in enacting healthcare policies. By categorizing the individual mandate as a tax penalty rather than a direct regulation of conduct, the Court acknowledged the significance of maintaining a delicate equilibrium between federal and state authorities in the implementation of healthcare policies.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
The Supreme Court’s ruling, in this instance, had a different impact on federalism. It challenged the validity of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required specific states and jurisdictions with a documented history of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval (referred to as preclearance) before making any changes to their voting laws. The Supreme Court invalidated the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to preclearance, rendering Section 5 of the Act practically non-operational (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013). Consequently, the decision bestowed greater authority upon the states to alter their voting laws without federal supervision, thereby impacting the equilibrium between state and federal jurisdiction.
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018)
This case revolved around the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a legislation that banned states from permitting sports betting. The Supreme Court invalidated PASPA, stating that it violated the anti-commandeering doctrine, which limits the federal government’s ability to compel states to adopt or enforce specific laws (Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2018). The decision allowed states to legalize and regulate sports betting if they chose to do so, demonstrating the Court’s recognition of state sovereignty in regulating gambling activities.
These cases underscore the intricate interaction among the Supreme Court, federalism, and public administration. They illustrate changes in the equilibrium of power between the federal government and states, wherein certain rulings extend state authority while others curtail it. Public administrators must navigate this evolving landscape to understand the limitations and boundaries established by the Court and effectively implement policies within the framework of federalism.
Decisions and Roles of Public Administrators in the U.S. Federalist System
Within the framework of the American Federalist system, the decisions made by public administrators hold substantial influence over policy implementation and government operations at both federal and state levels. Public administrators, entrusted with the execution of laws, management of governmental programs, and provision of public services, possess the agency to significantly impact the distribution of power between federal and state governments, as well as the daily lives of individuals and communities.
At the federal level, public administrators operate within executive agencies and departments, dutifully carrying out federal laws and regulations nationwide. Their responsibility lies in ensuring consistent interpretation and application of federal policies across diverse states and jurisdictions (Agranoff, 2017). By doing so, they shape how federal programs are delivered, affecting the interaction between the federal government and state administrations.
Meanwhile, at the state level, public administrators similarly hold pivotal roles in decision-making processes. State agencies and departments are charged with implementing state-specific laws and policies within their respective jurisdictions. Thus, they possess the authority to adapt and customize federal programs to align with the particular needs and priorities of their states. Within areas such as education, healthcare, transportation, and environmental regulations, state administrators exercise discretion (Agranoff, 2017). Their decisions actively influence the degree of cooperation or resistance to federal policies within their states, thus embodying the intricate dynamics of the federalist structure.
Public administrators functioning in the Federalist system are tasked with striking a delicate balance between federal and state interests and mandates. Their roles are intricately intertwined with the complex realm of federal-state relations, requiring adherence to federal guidelines while upholding state autonomy. This necessitates comprehensive comprehension of the legal framework, proactive engagement in intergovernmental collaboration, and consideration of the distinct circumstances and preferences inherent within individual states.
Moreover, the involvement of public administrators is integral to intergovernmental relations and deliberative processes. Through participation in collaborative endeavors such as conferences, task forces, and negotiations, representatives from federal, state, and local governments convene to address common challenges (Agranoff, 2017). These collaborative interactions enable public administrators to exchange best practices, harmonize efforts, and collectively formulate policies impacting multiple tiers of government.
The decisions made by public administrators extend beyond individual casework, permeating resource allocation, service delivery, and the overall governance structure within the Federalist system. Their actions can be influenced by the political priorities of the overseeing administration, in addition to the values and preferences espoused by the communities they serve. It is expected that public administrators espouse principles of accountability, efficiency, and responsiveness while skilfully navigating the intricate interplay of federalism in the United States.
Effect of Recent Findings on Federal, State, and Local Governments
The recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court, covered in prior sections, have played a defining role in interpreting laws and molding the authorities and duties of government across different tiers. Considerable research has been conducted on these verdicts, providing invaluable insights into their effects and repercussions on the decision-making mechanisms, resource allotments, and inter-relations between varying levels of government. Numerous scholarly works have sought to comprehend the aftermath of these judgments on policy formulation, legal frameworks, and federal-state relationships. Below, a few of these discoveries are juxtaposed to showcase how the rulings of the Supreme Court, as explored in this research, influence the shifting dynamics and functions of government at multiple layers.
Newmark et al. (2019) argue that the decision of the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. has fully reshaped the landscape of taxation and e-commerce. This ruling had a significant impact on state governments as it provided them with the authority to generate additional revenue from online sales. It also required states to adapt their tax collection processes and systems to comply with the new requirements. Consequently, state governments had to develop and implement strategies to enforce and administer the collection of sales tax from online retailers, which in turn affected local governments’ budgets and funding (Lowe, et al., 2021).
The influence of the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius on how healthcare policy and relations between the federal government and the states is established turned out to be vast. Specifically, the Supreme Court supported the constitutionality of the individual mandate clause within the Affordable Care Act, which enlarged the involvement of the federal government in healthcare. The mandate necessitated individuals to acquire health insurance; otherwise, they could potentially face a penalty. This decision influenced state governments’ responsibilities and decision-making regarding the implementation of healthcare reforms, such as Medicaid expansion (Rosenbaum, 2021). It also sparked debates and discussions on the balance between federal and state authorities in shaping healthcare policy.
Shelby County v. Holder had significant implications for voting rights and election procedures. A fundamental provision of the Voting Rights Act was invalidated by the Supreme Court, effectively relieving specific states and areas with a history of racial discrimination from the necessity of obtaining federal consent before adjusting their voting policies. Consequently, the obligation to execute and enforce voting laws now lies with the states, putting voter participation and ballot box access at risk (Gibson, 2020). State and local governments must, therefore, adapt to this legal transformation and thoroughly consider the potential repercussions of future voting-related policies.
Meanwhile, Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Supreme Court ruling on sports betting regulation, has fused the domains of state and federal oversight. The outcome of this case has led to a multiplicity of strategies concerning sports betting regulations across the country. States have consequently used this newfound authority to shape the sports betting industry in a manner that is advantageous to their specific needs and interests, thereby highlighting the fluidity of the connection between federal, state, and local governments in the United States (Harris, 2020). The decision strongly contributed to the government’s adherence to the principle of federalism and highlighted the Court’s recognition of state sovereignty in shaping policies that pertain to gambling and other forms of regulated activities.
Biblical Worldview
The impact of a biblical worldview on Supreme Court decisions has transformed through the years, mirroring changes in societal norms and legal interpretations. Although it is challenging to make sweeping claims regarding this impact, there has been a conspicuous inclination towards more liberal and progressive interpretations of issues related to moral values, religious freedom, and individual rights. Nevertheless, the decisions of the Court frequently reflect the individual outlooks of those presently in positions of power instead of embodying precepts of neutral and fair judgment. In order to understand to what extent the biblical worldviews of the judiciary have contributed to the changes that occur in the political and legislative environment, some of the most recent and relevant Supreme Court decisions will be examined below.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
In this case, the Supreme Court’s ruling supporting a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to religious beliefs aligns with the stance of protecting religious freedom. In Romans 12:2, faithful followers are implored not to conform to this world but be transformed by the renewal of the mind (New American Standard Bible, 2020). A conservative interpretation of this verse in relation to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case suggests that business owners who hold a biblical worldview possess the right to abstain from providing services that conflict with their religious beliefs. However, allowing businesses to refuse services due to sexual orientation can undermine the notions of inclusivity, equality, diversity, and tolerance. This case raises significant concerns as it sets a precedent for selective discrimination on the basis of personal religious or moral convictions.
Carson v. Makin (2022)
The Supreme Court’s judgment, in this instance, aligns with the Christian belief of non-discrimination. Galatians 3:28 affirms that in Christ Jesus, all individuals are one, erasing distinctions between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, and male or female (New American Standard Bible, 2020). From this perspective, religious schools should be treated equally without discrimination based on their faith beliefs. However, as Justice Sotomayor argued in her dissent, this ruling could result in violating the Establishment Clause and potentially facilitating government funding of religious education, thereby favoring specific theological beliefs (Carson v. Makin, 2022). Considering this, it is necessary to take into account the anxieties of those who oppose the use of public funds for religious education and strive to keep the balance between religious freedom and secular society.
303 Creative LLC et al. v. Elenis et al. (2023)
The ruling of the Supreme Court in this trial protected a Christian web designer who refused to make wedding websites for same-sex couples based on religious convictions that predicated free speech guarantees. It permits businesses to abstain from offering services that defy their faith beliefs while preserving the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 2023). However, critics of the Court’s decision, including the LGBTQ community supporters, contend that it allows discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity, undermining fair access to public amenities and establishing a precedent for discrimination against marginalized groups (Keren, 2023). This case brings up substantial worries about how to reconcile religious liberty with laws against discrimination.
In light of the discussed cases, it is apparent that the biblical worldview influences the political and legislative environment. The major issue arising from the analysis of these Supreme Court decisions is that they generate uncertainties regarding individual rights, religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. This observation indicates that conservative interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution can potentially lead to favoring religious businesses and individuals over marginalized groups. These debates display that the interplay between religious rights and discrimination will remain a significant area of future research in law and politics.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decisions, the role of public administrators, and the influence of a biblical worldview collectively shape the dynamics of governance in the federalist system. Comprehending the connotations of these factors is pivotal for achieving efficient management and preserving the fragile equilibrium between federal and state jurisdiction. This study has demonstrated the intricate interplay between the central and local governments, the developing function of public administrators, and the outcomes of Supreme Court judgments on policy implementation and intergovernmental dealings. This investigation suggests that the mutual connection among all these factors will persist in shaping the political and lawful framework of the United States, thereby signifying the necessity of further research in this field to attain insight into the mechanics of governance in a federalist system.
References
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. _ (2023). Web.
Agranoff, R. (2017). Crossing boundaries for intergovernmental management. Georgetown University Press.
Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. _ (2022). Web.
Christensen, R., & Wise, C. (2009). Dead or alive? The federalism revolution and its meaning for public administration. Public Administration Review, 69(5), 920-931.
Harris, B. (2020). Federal interference with state and tribal sports betting regulations will not work: Where the Sports Wagering Integrity Act of 2018 went wrong and how federal legislation might be effective. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 30, 106-141. Web.
Gibson, N. S. (2020). Moving forward or backsliding: A causal inference analysis of the effects of the Shelby decision in North Carolina. American Politics Research, 48(5), 649-662. Web.
Keren, H. (2023). 303 Creative v Elenis: What’s wrong with preemptive litigation of discrimination. Social Science Research Network. Web.
Lowe, S. K., Staples, J., & Ward, C. L. (2021). South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. and streamlined sales and use tax agreement: Effects on state sales tax collections. Midwestern Business and Economic Review, 54, 1-12.
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2018). Harvard Law Review, 132(1), 387-396.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). Web.
New American Standard Bible. (2020). Lockman Foundation. Web.
Newmark, N. S., Walk, R. S., & Willeford Jr., R. V. (2019). Cross border state sales and use taxation after South Dakota v. Wayfair: A new paradigm for e-commerce. The Business, Entrepreneurship & Tax Law Review, 3(1), 16-35.
Rosenbaum, S. (2021). Confronting the consequences of National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius to insure the poor. Milbank Quarterly Opinion. Web.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). Web.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018). Harvard Law Review, 132(1), 277-286.