Also known as: federalism principle · principles of federalism · federalism
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A structural principle of the U.S. constitutional system under which governmental power is divided between a national sovereign and state sovereigns. Each exercises full authority within its assigned sphere. The national government remains limited to powers granted by the Constitution, and federal action may not intrude on reserved state powers or alter this basic division.
Philip Powell, a U.S. citizen abroad, faces court-martial under an executive agreement with a foreign nation that denies him a jury trial. He challenges the agreement in federal court. The court holds that the agreement cannot override Fifth Amendment protections because the principle of federalism prevents treaties or agreements from altering constitutional limits on federal power.
Pavel Petrov faces ongoing state criminal prosecution for alleged fraud in State A. He files a federal suit seeking to enjoin the proceedings on constitutional grounds. The federal court abstains, citing principles of comity and federalism that require deference to state courts absent bad-faith prosecution or a flagrantly invalid statute.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Piper Patel, director of State A's environmental agency, receives a federal directive requiring her staff to perform inspections under a national manufacturing oversight program using state budgets. She sues, arguing the directive commandeers state officers. The court invalidates the requirement because the principle of federalism prohibits Congress from compelling states to administer federal regulatory programs.
Penelope Price seeks survivor benefits for her child after the father's death. A federal statute denies benefits to children born out of wedlock unless paternity was formally acknowledged. She challenges the statute. The court strikes it down because the principle of federalism bars federal legislation that exceeds enumerated powers by displacing state authority over domestic relations.
Pierce Patterson, a state election official, enforces a state disclosure rule against a federal candidate. Federal law purports to preempt the state rule. Patterson sues to uphold the state requirement. The court upholds the state rule because the principle of federalism limits federal preemption that would displace core state authority over elections without clear constitutional warrant.
Paul Peterson sues federal agents in federal court for damages after an unlawful search conducted under a cooperative federal-state program. He asserts a direct constitutional claim. The court recognizes the remedy because the principle of federalism does not bar federal courts from providing relief against federal officers even when state procedures are involved.
The principle prevents Congress from commandeering state executive officers to administer federal programs. Federal directives that require states to conduct inspections or audits using state personnel and budgets violate this limit because they intrude on powers reserved to the states.
Federal courts must generally abstain from enjoining ongoing state criminal cases out of comity and federalism. Abstention is required absent extraordinary circumstances such as bad-faith prosecution or a statute that is flagrantly unconstitutional with no valid application.
Yes. An individual criminal defendant has standing to assert a Tenth Amendment or federalism-based challenge when federal action exceeds Congress's enumerated powers and intrudes on state authority, provided the defendant shows injury in fact and redressability.
No. Treaties and executive agreements are not co-equal with the Constitution. They cannot authorize action that violates specific constitutional protections or alter basic structural principles such as federalism.
…solid recognition of the basic values that underlie our society, and wise appreciation of the great roles [of] the doctrines of federalism and separation of powers.” Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479, 501 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). B The majority acknowledges none of this doctrinal background,…