American federalism is a highly institutionalized compound of dual, cooperative, and coercive federalism that are coexisting states as well as historical phases. Contemporary coercive federalism has several systemic consequences including a shift in federal policy-making from places to persons, long-term fiscal stress, deceased intergovernmental institutions, rising polarization, a relegitimizing of states’ rights, and a paradoxical decline of public trust in the federal government coupled with public dedication to federal policy-making. Trump’s presidency, therefore, will likely be more of an interlude than a transformative moment in American federalism. Long-term trends highlighted in this issue will likely outlast Trump, although the trends point toward more centralization and polarization even while states and localities remain independently innovative on many fronts.
AdkinsRandall E.KirwanKent A.. 2002. What role does the “Federalism Bonus” play in presidential selection? Publius: The Journal of Federalism32:71–90.
2.
AndersonWilliam. 1955. The Nation and the States, Rivals or Partners?Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
BaderChristopher K.2014. A dynamic defense of cooperative federalism. Whittier Law Review35:161–97.
4.
BakerPeter. 2017. Trump takes Obama approach as he tries to erase a legacy. New York Times, October 14, pp. A1 and A11.
5.
BarberMichaelMcCartyNolan. 2015. Causes and consequences of polarization. In Solutions to Political Polarization in America, edited by PersilyNathan, 15–58. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BeltonKeith B.KrutillaKerryGrahamJohn D.. 2017. Regulatory reform in the trump era. Public Administration Review77:643–44.
7.
BoehmkeFrederick J.SkinnerPaul. 2012. State policy innovativeness revisited. State Politics and Policy Quarterly12:304–30.
8.
BowmanAnn O’M.1986. The Resurgence of the States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
BurnsAlexander. 2017. Tax plan carries political peril for republicans in blue states. New York Times, November 6, pp. A1–A15.
10.
CallenZachary. 2016. Railroads and American political development infrastructure, federalism, and state building. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
11.
ChhibberPradeepKollmanKen. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
ClarkJane Perry. 1938. The Rise of a New Federalism: Federal-State Cooperation in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
13.
ClintonWilliam Jefferson. 1999. Address by William Jefferson Clinton. Publius: The Journal of Federalism29:23–32.
14.
ColeRichard L.2011. The current status and roles of state advisory commissions on intergovernmental relations in the U.S. Federal System. Public Administration Review71:190–95.
15.
CollinsRonald K. L.GaliePeter J.JohnKincaid. 1986. State high courts, state constitutions, and individual rights litigation since 1980: A judicial survey. Publius: The Journal of Federalism16:141–61.
16.
CorwinEdward S.1950. The passing of dual federalism. Virginia Law Review36:1–23.
17.
DickinsonGregory M.2010. An empirical study of obstacle preemption in the Supreme Court. Nebraska Law Review89:682–708.
18.
DilgerRobert Jay. 2017. Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: A Historical Perspective on Contemporary Issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
19.
DionneE. J.OrnsteinNormanMannThomas E.2017. One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet Deported. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
20.
ElazarDaniel J.1962. The American Partnership: Intergovernmental Co-operation in the Nineteenth Century United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. 1985. 469 U.S. 528.
22.
GerkenHeather K.2012. A new progressive federalism. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas24:17–21.
23.
GerkenHeather K.2014. Federalism as the new nationalism: An overview. Yale Law Journal123:1626–2133.
24.
GibsonEdward L.2012. Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Federal Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HirschlRan. 2009. The judicialization of politics. In Oxford Handbook of Political Science, edited by GoodinRobert E.New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 253–74.
26.
JordansFrankThiesingDorothee. 2017. U.S. cities defy Trump, support climate deal. The Express-Times, November 12, p. B8.
KincaidJohn. 1990. From cooperative to coercive federalism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science509:139–52.
29.
KincaidJohn. 1993a. Constitutional federalism: Labor’s role in displacing places to benefit persons. PS: Political Science & Politics26:172–77.
30.
KincaidJohn. 1993b. From cooperation to coercion in American Federalism: Housing, fragmentation, and preemption, 1780–1992. Journal of Law and Politics9:333–433.
31.
KincaidJohn. 1995. Foreword: The new federalism context of the new judicial federalism. Rutgers Law Journal26:913–48.
32.
KincaidJohn. 2001a. The state of U.S. Federalism, 2000–2001: Continuity in crisis. Publius: The Journal of Federalism31:1–69.
33.
KincaidJohn. 2001b. Reviving the ACIR would be wonderful—But it’s unlikely. State Tax Notes20:369.
34.
KincaidJohn. 2011a. The rise of social welfare and onward march of coercive federalism. In Networked Governance: The Future of Intergovernmental Management, edited by MeekJack W.ThurmaierKurt, 8–38. Los Angeles, CA: Sage/CQ Press.
35.
KincaidJohn. 2011b. The U.S. advisory commission on intergovernmental relations: Unique artifact of a bygone era. Public Administration Review71:181–89.
36.
KincaidJohn. 2014. The Federalist and V. Ostrom on concurrent taxation and federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism44:275–97.
37.
KoniskyDavid. 2011. Public preferences for environmental policy responsibility. Publius: The Journal of Federalism41:76–100.
38.
KoontzTomas. 2002. State Innovation in Natural Resources Policy: Ecosystem Management on Public Forests. State and Local Government Review34:160–72.
MettlerSuzanne. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
MickeyRobert. 2015. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944–1972. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
MintromMichaelVergariSandra. 1997. Charter schools as a state policy innovation: Assessing recent developments. State and Local Government Review29:43–49.
50.
Monroe v. Pape. 1961. 365 U.S. 167.
51.
MusgraveRichard. 1959. The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
52.
National League of Cities v. Usery. 1976. 426 U.S. 833.
53.
NeustadtRichard E.1980. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership from FDR to Carter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
54.
New York v. United States. 1992. 505 U.S. 144.
55.
NolettePaul. 2014. State litigation during the Obama administration: Diverging agendas in an era of polarized politics. Publius: The Journal of Federalism44:451–74.
56.
NolettePaul. 2015. Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
57.
OlsonMancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
PasztorAndy. 2017. U.S. Drone-test plan sets shared oversight. Wall Street Journal, October 26, p. B7.
59.
Pear, Robert. 2017. White house tells states it backs Medicaid work requirements. New York Times, November 8, p. A19.
60.
PetersonPaul E. 1995. The Price of Federalism. Washington, DC: Brookings.
SavageCharles. 2017. Courts reshaped at fastest pace in five decades. New York Times, November 12, pp. 1 and 19.
67.
SchierSteven E.EberlyTodd E.. 2016. Polarized: The Rise of Ideology in American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
68.
SchneiderSaundra K.JacobyWilliam G.. 2003. Public attitudes toward policy responsibilities of the national and state governments: Evidence from South Carolina. State Politics and Policy Quarterly3:246–69.
69.
ShapiroMartin. 1994. Judicialization of politics in the United States. International Political Science Review15:101–12.
Sturges v. Crowninshield. 1819. 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122.
72.
ThompsonLykeEllingRichard. 1999. Let them eat marblecake: The preferences of Michigan citizens for devolution and intergovernmental service-provision. Publius: The Journal of Federalism29:139–53.
73.
TocquevilleAlexis. 1969. Democracy in America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
74.
TugwellRexford G.1968. The Brains Trust. New York: Viking.
75.
U.S. ACIR (U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations). 1984. Regulatory Federalism: Policy, Process, Impact and Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. ACIR.
76.
U.S. ACIR (U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations). 1992. Federal Statutory Preemption of State and Local Authority: History, Inventory, and Issues. Washington, DC: U.S. ACIR.
77.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2016. State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: 2016 Update. GAO-17-213SP. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
78.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2017, 4. Medicaid Demonstrations: Federal Action Needed to Improve Oversight of Spending, GAO-17-3132. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
79.
WalkerDavid B.2000. The Rebirth of Federalism: Slouching toward Washington, 2nd ed. New York: Chatham House.
