fbpx

State Versus National Citizenship in Our New Federalism

In another sign of what is becoming a kind of New Federalism, certain blue states and two federal district courts have joined together to resist the Trump administration’s newly promulgated Religious and Moral Exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, and, thereby, alter the relationship of the states to the national government, the doctrine of standing in federal lawsuits, and the status of injunctions as “extraordinary” judicial remedies.

On November 18, 2018, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and HHS jointly promulgated final rules entitled “Religious and Moral Exemption.” In May 2017, President Trump had signed an executive order requiring those departments “to consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive care mandate.” The Religious Exemption was the latest revision of regulations originally promulgated by the Obama administration in 2011 and which had been the subject of the Hobby Lobby (2014), Wheaton College (2014), and Zubik (2016) Supreme Court cases, in all of which the Court had recognized some form of a religious exemption. The Moral Exemption was new and a public act unprecedented perhaps since James Madison introduced his initial version of the First Amendment which protected against the infringement of “the full and equal rights of conscience.” Now, in separate anticipatory lawsuits filed to prevent the final rules from going into effect, a California federal district judge and a Pennsylvania federal district judge issued decisions last month suspending and enjoining those rules.

Two months after the passage in March 2010 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Obamacare), the same three federal departments had issued “the contraceptive mandate” which required private insurance companies to provide contraception free of charge to women. The departments ignored the requirements of rule-making under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), labeling the Mandate something of an emergency in “the public interest.”

In the California district court case, thirteen states, all blue, have sued, and in the Pennsylvania case, two states, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Their contentions are the same. Neither case includes private plaintiffs who are alleging harm under either of the two Exemptions. Both the California and the Pennsylvania plaintiff states allege that the final rules violate the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Establishment Clause. That is, along with their other contentions, the states are alleging that the Trump administration is attempting, inter alia, to establish religion!

The Trump administration is defending by asserting that the Religious Exemption is not only allowed but is required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which was enacted to overturn the Supreme Court’s Oregon v. Smith decision in which the Court ruled that Oregon’s criminal drug laws could be sustained against a challenge by some Native American who used mescaline in their religious rituals. (Yes, that’s when Oregon was not yet Oregon.). The RFRA currently requires that when federal laws and rules of general applicability place a “substantial burdens” on a person’s free exercise of religion, the government must employ the “least restrictive means” to achieve a compelling government interest.

Judicial “Special Solicitude” Towards the States

Both district judges allowed the states to sue based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), a 5-4 groundbreaking decision in which the Court allowed the state of Massachusetts to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for its alleged failure to regulate greenhouse gases. Massachusetts, along with private litigants, alleged that climate change and global warming affected it particularly in that a “great deal” of its territory, and hence its “quasi sovereignty,” was affected by both global warming and climate change. In his decision for the majority of five justices, Justice Stevens, although recognizing that “States are not normal litigants for the purposes of invoking federal jurisdiction,” went on to invent a new jurisprudential doctrine to the effect that the federal courts may exercise a “special” constitutional “solicitude” on behalf of the states. He said that Massachusetts had an interest “in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests.”

The significance of the case for constitutional federalism is illustrated by Chief Justice Roberts’ vigorous opinion for the four dissenting justices. Roberts pointed out that the majority could muster no support or case law for its “novel” holding that states had “special solicitude” in the Supreme Court. He reviewed the standing of states in federal courts. In Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923), the famous case in which the Supreme Court rejected the concept of “taxpayer standing,” the Court had ruled that states may not represent the interests, as parens patriae, of their individual citizens against the federal government. Such interests are aspects of national citizenship, not state citizenship. As Roberts pointed out, in such cases, quoting Massachusetts v. Mellon, “it is the United States, and not the State, that represents them.” Individuals, not states as surrogates, must themselves sue. In general, after both Massachusetts cases, states may sue the federal government, in their sovereign or quasi-sovereign capacities, in order to protect the functioning and enforceability of their own laws and state programs.

In the style and language of a legislator, Justice Stevens actually discussed the issue of and evidence for global warming and expressed his approval of the necessity to do something about it. Justice Kennedy was in the majority, and this is one of the areas of the law where the question will arise about the possible difference that Justice Kavanaugh will make.

Neither the California nor the Pennsylvania court discussed the plaintiff states’ free exercise or establishment clauses.  And both courts found that the Administrative Procedures Act did not allow the two Exemptions, although neither bothered to pay much attention to the difference between the original Obama and the Trump-revised Religious Exemption.

“Extraordinary” Judicial Acts

The most important part of both decisions concerned the two courts’ conclusion that the supposedly “extraordinary remedy” of an injunction, nationwide in the Pennsylvania case, should issue in each case. Both district courts accepted the contentions of the plaintiff states that they would suffer “irreparable harm,” the most important standard for the issuance of an injunction, if the court did not enjoin the new rules. The state of Pennsylvania argued that its “fiscal integrity” would be irreparably harmed because women who had been denied access to contraception under the ACA would seek contraception from state and locally funded programs. Pennsylvania estimated that 74,000 women would lose contraception coverage. Those women would presumably be employees—again, such women are not individual plaintiffs alleging harm in either district court case—of in businesses or of religious organizations. The court did not inquire into how Pennsylvania got the total of 74,000 women who would cause “irreparable” damage to the public finances of Pennsylvania, which has a population of almost 13 million.

Pennsylvania is also contending that it is acting to protect the “safety and well-being” of its citizens. For, without free access to contraceptives in their private insurance plans, women will suffer “unintended” and “irreversible” pregnancies. The contention of the California states is similar. The states will suffer “economic harm” if women lose employer subsidized contraception care. Women will turn to state programs, of which California has its own family planning program. The California court cited HHS’ own statistics that the new rule would cause lost coverage to 126,400 women nationwide, thus, showing that the Pennsylvania court’s estimate of 74,000 for the state of Pennsylvania alone was wildly inaccurate.

What Can States Not Do These Days?

These two recent and essentially identical federal district-court decisions have both raised and focused attention on what during the Trump years is becoming a change in the definition of the judicial power under the Constitution, at least in the lower federal courts.

First, we are fast abandoning the fundamental jurisprudence of our law that legislatures make general rules and courts apply them to specific circumstances when a dispute arises. Compared to the laboriousness, the negotiations, and the compromises involving group—that is, legislative—decision-making and the drawn-out notice and public-comment procedures of administrative law, judicial decisions are supremely efficient. They do resolve “cases and controversies” all at once. It is hard to imagine a more complicated legislative and political issue than climate change. But that did not deter Justice Stevens, as noted above, from giving his opinions about the need for the Supreme Court to act on the subject in Massachusetts v. EPA. Likewise, in the California district court case considered herein, the judge, in issuing the injunction, spoke not only of the “equities” but also of the “public interest analyses” demonstrating the “dire public health and fiscal consequences” in the states. In the Trump era, injunctions, including nationwide injunctions, against federal laws and regulations have become regular, not “extraordinary.” When words like “extraordinary” and “irreparable” are drained of their meaning, one-person edicts by federal district court judges can become partisan and ideological, not legal or constitutional. And such arbitrary judicial power can even be comical: the extravagant notion that the economy of the state of Pennsylvania will be “irreparably” harmed by the birth of a few thousand children!

Second, these are cases in which the suing states themselves, not on behalf of some of their women citizens, are transparently and obviously opposing the principles of religious liberty and moral consciences as a matter of policy. Neither case has private women plaintiffs who are persons alleging personal harm on account of the two exemptions. And such plaintiffs are unlikely. Since 2011, the only aggrieved plaintiffs on the issue of religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate have been the aggrieved institutions in the Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and Zubik (incl. the Little Sisters of the Poor) cases that have been victims of attempted federal coercion to require them to offer contraception. Those institutions did not offer contraception, so there were no women employees denied access to contraception.

Third, if the suing states in the California and Pennsylvania cases have standing to challenge federal administrative rules based on extravagant claims that they are protecting their economies from impregnated women, then it has to be wondered whether there are any prohibitions on what federal laws or programs the states may challenge. As for state economies, every federal program and law affects the economies of every state every day. The Massachusetts v. Mellon case and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent in Massachusetts v. EPA stand for the principle that there is federal citizenship quite apart from the standing of states to defend true federalism. If it were not so, soldiers could not be drafted in time of war.

Fourth, the fifteen states involved in the two suits have declared that pregnancy is a major public-policy concern of state governments. They have sued in an attempt to guarantee women access to contraception. The California states have expressed their concern that “unintended pregnancies which would impose significant costs on the states.” That is, those states have declared that there is a public interest in and that they are counting the number of pregnancies in their states. The next step might be for them to require certain women, those on welfare, for instance, to use contraception.

Fifth, the two district court cases discussed herein are representative of a kind of New Federalism. The two cases go along with the acts of several states, especially California, that have established themselves to varying degrees as “sanctuaries” against the heretofore unchallenged constitutional doctrine that immigration is a federal responsibility and in active opposition to federal enforcement of criminal immigration statutes. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the case in which the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s “travel ban,” the states suing below had alleged that the travel ban was damaging admissions to their state colleges! Likewise, the spread of state legalization of “recreational” marijuana production and use has been accomplished by just ignoring federal criminal laws about marijuana. And, as was inevitable, that has led to the widespread acceptance, much of it informal for now, of the decriminalization of other drugs, as demonstrated by the coming referendum in Denver about legalizing psychedelic mushrooms.

In closing, it must be admitted that the fundamental principle of federalism involved in any New Federalism must give pause to those like this writer dedicated to that principle. A rebirth of federalism? And it was partly Massachusetts v. EPA that allowed the Fifth Circuit to hold in Texas v. US in 2015 that the Obama administration’s DAPA program, the extension of the DACA (“dreamers”) program, was unconstitutional, although the state of Texas did allege in its suit that DAPA was going to require it to change state laws. Likewise, standing for the new suit by California and other states against President Trump’s national-emergency decree is entirely based on this New Federalism. And as for the decriminalization of drugs by the states, several conservative and libertarian organizations are in the forefront of that ever-growing movement.  They regularly argue that drug decriminalization will be good for state economies. Can they sue?

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on February 22, 2019 at 09:54:51 am

The idea that the "principle" Ascik detects evolving from these cases would ever be applied symmetrically, to require women on welfare to use contraception, to use his own example, is just not credible. The sheer volume of federal statutes and cases amounts to an undifferentiated field of dots within which any curve at all may be plotted, and any federal judge could easily (with the help of her zealous law clerks) plot an analytical curve that at least had a superficial plausibility as to why some other federal statute or judicial doctrine overruled the state-sovereignty principle in such a case, all to the wild acclaim of the media.

I mean, we have federal judges, eager to be proclaimed as the next Learned Hand or Louis Brandeis or whomever, creating principles ex legalis nihilo such as the Due Process Clause guarantees American citizens an “unenumerated fundamental right” to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life.” You can't make this stuff up (unless, of course, you are a federal judge, like Stevens in Mass v EPA).

These are the wages of a century's worth of judges being allowed and even encouraged to act like Judges (in the Biblical sense). The amount of will it would take to undo this evolutionary development is probably too great for any future conservative-majority SCOTUS. Thomas will retire soon and Scalia is dead. Roberts is no anti-Warren, and conservative and libertarian law faculty would prefer to remain morally correct rather than politically effective, so they don't urge conservative Justices to adopt a Mark Tushnet policy of simply overturning poor (from a conservative point of view) SCOTUS decisions as having been "wrongly decided."

Like Nietzsche, the Anti-Federalists were posthumous men.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on February 22, 2019 at 10:15:39 am

Good analogy, federal judges are behaving like the Sanhedrin.

read full comment
Image of EK
EK
on February 22, 2019 at 11:46:35 am

"§ 2285. Orders purporting to restrain enforcement against non-parties

“No court of the United States (and no district court of the Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands) shall issue an order that purports to restrain the enforcement against a non-party of any statute, regulation, order, or similar authority, unless the non-party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”.

From the (proposed) Injunctive Clarification Act of 2018.

Apparently, this died a rather quick death. Too bad!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on February 22, 2019 at 15:29:31 pm

From the article: "As Roberts pointed out, in such cases, quoting Massachusetts v. Mellon, 'it is the United States, and not the State, that represents them.'"

Here, "United States" refers specifically to the federal government, as opposed to "United States of America" -- the union of the 50 States. This distinction goes all the way back to the Articles of Confederation.

The 14th Amendment created a special category of "United States" citizenship, as opposed to citizenship of one of the several states, which was transferable to any other state upon simply changing residence.

--

From the article: "Pennsylvania is also contending that it is acting to protect the 'safety and well-being' of its citizens.

The meaning of "happiness" (as used in the 18th century) has changed. What was meant by happiness back then is now represented by "well-being." Someone in Pennsylvania clearly knows something about 18th-century state constitutional jurisprudence, at least enough to know of the term "safety and happiness" which summarizes the purpose of legitimate government, in the "natural" legal tradition rooted in Cicero and including Hutcheson, Burlamaqui and Vattel, all of whom were influential in the Founding era.

This phrase "safety and happiness" was DEFINED in the May 1776 independence resolution (drafted by John Adams), in which the Continental Congress instructed the various colonies to go about writing their state constitutions, many of which included the phrase "safety and happiness" -- hence the recent Pennsylvania reference to "safety and well-being." (The safety and happiness of the people was the revolutionary standard for governmental legitimacy, and this phrase appeared at many key moments in the Revolutionary and Founding eras.)

I would like to suggest that the 1776 definition of "safety and happiness" is inconsistent with a claimed right to access to birth control. "Safety" was defined as "defence of lives, liberties and properties" -- the famous English constitutional trinity going back to Magna Carta. (As the eminent legal scholar John Phillip Reid has pointed out, the Founders read Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" as a COMMENTARY on established constitutional principles.)

Happiness was defined as "internal peace, virtue and good order." Adams deliberately chose phrases that speak to both public and personal happiness. "Internal peace" refers to a clean conscience. "Virtue" embraces the four cardinal virtues, with benevolence ("love of our fellow-men," to quote a translation of Cicero) as essential to the preeminent virtue of justice. "Good order" referred to absence of the "four disorders of the soul" (distress, fear, lust and ecstasy), as discussed in chapters 3 and 4 of Cicero's Tusculan Disputations.

More on this in "The May Resolution and the Declaration of Independence" at https://startingpointsjournal.com/may-resolution-declaration-of-independence/

See also "Safety and Happiness: The American Revolutionary Standard for Governmental Legitimacy" at https://www.academia.edu/1479704/Safety_and_Happiness_The_American_Revolutionary_Standard_for_Governmental_Legitimacy

read full comment
Image of John Schmeeckle
John Schmeeckle
on February 23, 2019 at 11:54:37 am

"the Due Process Clause guarantees American citizens an “unenumerated fundamental right” to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life.” You can’t make this stuff up (unless, of course, you are a federal judge, like Stevens in Mass v EPA)."

Well it appears that an Oregon Judge ALSO made it up:

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judicial-sanity-on-climate-change-litigation/

Later, however, in Clean Air Council v United States, a Pennsylvania Judge laid bare the idiocy of a similar claim as detailed in the above link by Ed Whelan.

Thus, we see another reason why "national" injunctions are destructive of proper exercise of the judicial Power as it tends to forestall the "percolating" effect of separate judicial determinations.

End National Injunctions and the Judiciary's never ending aggrandizement of its own "authorities."

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on February 23, 2019 at 13:38:11 pm

"an undifferentiated field of dots within which any curve at all may be plotted"

This is a particularly striking analogy, and I shall be using it regularly in conversation henceforth.

read full comment
Image of Jeremy
Jeremy
on March 05, 2019 at 06:02:11 am

[…] It’s the New Federalism. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the defendant in that case was a federal agency, and the subject matter, greenhouse gases, was something that by definition is an interstate and therefore a concern of the federal government. Today, any national emergency at our southern border is trivial compared to the alarm about climate change, an issue that a huge number of people, including the media, numerous public officials at all levels of government, and countless “experts” vociferously insist is not only a national but an international emergency. Why should they not be able to sue in federal court? What is more, why shouldn’t they sue about the Green New Deal, which involves the same kind of joined political issues like economics, health, safety, well-being, and environmentalism as the southern borders lawsuit? […]

read full comment
Image of The New Federalism and the New Federal Judiciary
The New Federalism and the New Federal Judiciary
on March 05, 2019 at 07:58:43 am

[…] It’s the New Federalism. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the defendant in that case was a federal agency, and the subject matter, greenhouse gases, was something that by definition is an interstate and therefore a concern of the federal government. Today, any national emergency at our southern border is trivial compared to the alarm about climate change, an issue that a huge number of people, including the media, numerous public officials at all levels of government, and countless “experts” vociferously insist is not only a national but an international emergency. Why should they not be able to sue in federal court? What is more, why shouldn’t they sue about the Green New Deal, which involves the same kind of joined political issues like economics, health, safety, well-being, and environmentalism as the southern borders lawsuit? […]

read full comment
Image of The New Federalism and the New Federal Judiciary – Building Blocks for Liberty
The New Federalism and the New Federal Judiciary – Building Blocks for Liberty

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.