States have authority over family laws, professional standards, and areas like education, health, transportation, economic development, and criminal justice. They are also responsible for creating balanced budgets by projecting revenue from taxes, fees, and federal sources to match planned expenses. While states have autonomy, their power is limited, as seen in cases like Arizona v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled federal immigration law can both preclude state enforcement efforts and preempt conflicting state laws.

1. States

2.  Constitution is non-specific
 Family laws, professional
standards
 Education, health, transpor
tation, economic
development, and criminal
justice
What do they do?

3.  Constitution is non-specific
 Family laws, professional
standards
 Education, health, transpor
tation, economic
development, and criminal
justice
What do they do?
0 10 20 30 40 50
Education
HHS
Public Safety
Transortation
Government
Other
Texas Expenditures, FY 2011

4.  40 states require balanced
budgets
 Project revenue and
expenses, fluctuations
Finances

5. Revenue
$208.2B
Federal
$74.6B
Taxes
$96.9B
Fees, etc
$34.9B
 40 states require balanced
budgets
 Project revenue and
expenses, fluctuations
 Projected Revenue for
Texas, 2014-2015
Finances

6.  Weak in the first wave
 Northwest Ordinance of 1787
 Post-Confederacy South constitutions
 Western states concerned about machine politics
 Trend since the 1960s
State constitutions

7. Legislatures
JudiciariesGovernors
Shared components

8.  No sovereignty, but home rule
 Dillon’s Rule, 1868
 “Municipal corporations owe their origins and derive their power
and rights wholly from the state legislature. It breathes into them
the breath without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it
may destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control.”
Local governments

9. National
Power
State
Power
Federalism is messy.

10.  Medical use in 20 states plus DC
 Medical and recreational use in 4 states
Where is marijuana legal?

11.  WA and CO voters
 “Don’t break out the
Cheetos or the Goldfish too
quickly.”
 Controlled Substances Act
 Illegal, no prescriptions
November 2012

12.  State regulation from “seed
to sale”
 Children, inter-state
sales, gangs
 Banks, security
providers, and landlords?
Justice Department’s response

13.  Arizona’s 2010 laws
 Created state requirements
and penalties related to
immigration law
enforcement
 Existing federal law
Immigration

14.  Four provisions
 (1) created a state-law crime for being unlawfully present in the United States
 (2) created a state-law crime for working or seeking work while not authorized
to do so
 (3) required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of
anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained
 (4) authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the
United States.
 Does federal immigration law 1) preclude Arizona's enforcement
efforts and 2) preempt AZ law?
Arizona v. United States

15.  Four provisions
 (1) created a state-law crime for being unlawfully present in the United States
 (2) created a state-law crime for working or seeking work while not authorized
to do so
 (3) required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of
anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained
 (4) authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the
United States.
 Does federal immigration law 1) preclude Arizona's enforcement
efforts and 2) preempt AZ law? Yes and no.
Arizona v. United States

16.  Thirteen states and DC permit same sex marriage
 Federal benefits related to marriage
 Defense of Marriage Act, 1996
Same sex marriage

17.  Windsor and Spyer married
in Canada, 2007
 $383,000 tax, no marital
exemption
United States v. Windsor, 2013

18.  Is DOMA, which defines the term marriage as a “legal
union between a man and a woman”, unconstitutional?

19.  Is DOMA, which defines the term marriage as a “legal
union between a man and a woman”, unconstitutional?
 Partly. Given state marriage, it imposes a
“disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on
same-sex couples in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s
guarantee of equal protection.