Regulating Intergovernmental Relations in the 1990s

Abstract

The period since 1974 has witnessed major changes in intergovernmental relations as Congress has decreased federal financial aid to state and local governments and has exercised partial and total preemption powers in new areas and in innovative ways. President Ronald Reagan persuaded Congress to combine 57 categorical grant-in-aid programs into nine new or restructured block grants, thereby giving state governments a degree of regulatory relief. In addition, several of his administrative initiatives reduced federal regulation of state and local governments. Nevertheless, the president signed several major preemption, crossover-sanction, and tax-sanction bills into law. Current trends suggest that Congress will rely less on grants-in-aid and more on preemption, supplemented by crossover and tax sanctions, to achieve its policy goals. As a result, the federal system will become more complex. Federalism theory must be modified to explain fluctuating national-state relations on a continuing basis and the mutual dependence of each plane upon the other two planes for the performance of functions by incorporating, as central elements, informal and formal federal preemption.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. John Shannon , “The Return to Fend-for-Yourself Federalism: The Reagan Mark,” Intergovernmental Perspective, 13:34-37 (Summer-Fall 1987).

2. A federal mandate is a legal requirement—constitutional provision, statutory provision, or administrative regulation—requiring state and local governments to undertake a specific activity and/or provide a service meeting minimum standards.

See also Tinsley E. Yarbrough , “The Political World of Federal Judges as Managers,” Public Administration Review, 45:660-666 (Nov. 1985).

4. Lynn Bycznski , “Judge Raises Taxes to Pay for School Bias Remedy,” National Law Journal, 5 Oct. 1987, p. 25.

5. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

6. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978).

7. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).

8. Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978).

9. Linda Greenhouse , “Marshall Says Court Ruling Imperils Rights,” New York Times, 9 Sept. 1989.

10.

For views of state officials relative to the various types of preemption, see idem , Federal Preemption of State and Local Authority (Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1990).

11.

11. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1608, 29 U.S.C. § 667.

12.

12. Water Quality Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 903, 33 U.S.C. § 1151.

13.

13. Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350-51 (1943).

14.

14. City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power and Light Company, 435 U.S. 389, 416 (1978).

15.

15. Community Communications Corporation v. City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40 (1982).

16.

16. Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 2750, 15 U.S.C. § 36.

17.

17. “Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984. Statement on Signing H.R. 6027 into Law, October 24, 1984,”Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 29 Oct. 1984, p. 1643. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed further the antitrust liability of municipalities. See Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 105 S.Ct. 1713.

18.

18. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976).

19.

19. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985).

20.

20. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Education and Labor , Report to Accompany H.R. 3530, 99th Cong., 1st sess., 1985, H. Rept. 99-331, p. 30.

21.

21. Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1986, 100 Stat. 3342, 39 U.S.C. § 623.

22.

See also U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations , Disability Rights Mandates: Federal and State Compliance with Employment Protections and Architectural Barrier Removal (Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1989).

23.

23. “Text of Reagan's Speech Accepting the Republican Presidential Nomination,” New York Times, 19 July 1980, p. A8. The congressionally initiated Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 was enacted prior to the Reagan administration. The law directs federal agencies to reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on local governments under 50,000 population and on small businesses.

24.

24. Ronald Reagan , “Regulatory Program of the U.S. Government—Message from the President Received During the Adjournment—PM73,” Congressional Record, 14 Aug. 1985, pp. S11023-S11024.

25.

See also John Kincaid , “The State of American Federalism—1987,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 18:5 (Summer 1988).

26.

26. 40 CFR 51.18(j)(1)(i-ii). The concept measures air-pollutant emissions on a plantwide basis instead of on an individual-source basis. See also Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

27.

27. “Where They Stand on State-Federal Issues,” State Legislatures, 10:25 (Nov.-Dec. 1984).

28.

28. U.S. General Accounting Office , Education Block Grant Alters State Role and Provides Greater Local Discretion (Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 1984), p. 37.

29.

29. Michael S. Knapp and Craig H. Blakely , The Education Block Grant at the Local Level (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1986), p. iii.

30.

30. “A Quest for Excellence: Message to the Congress, January 27, 1987,” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 2 Feb. 1987, p. 77.

31.

31. South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S. Ct. 279 (1987).

32.

32. The Court in 1988 upheld the constitutionality of the provision of the Internal Revenue Code denying a federal income tax exemption for interest on unregistered bonds issued by state and local governments. See South Carolina v. Baker, 108 S. Ct. 1355 (1988).

33.

33. “The State of the Union. Address Delivered before a Joint Session of the Congress, January 26, 1982,” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 1 Feb. 1982, p. 80.

34.

34. South Carolina v. Baker, 108 S. Ct. 1355 (1988).