Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Understanding federalism court cases isn't about memorizing dates and case names—it's about recognizing the ongoing constitutional tug-of-war between federal and state power. Every case on this list represents a moment when the Supreme Court drew (or redrew) the boundaries of who gets to do what in our federal system. You're being tested on your ability to identify when federal power expands, when it contracts, and why the Court ruled the way it did.
These cases illustrate core principles you'll see throughout your AP exam: implied powers, the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, state sovereignty, and fiscal federalism. The Court doesn't rule in a vacuum—each decision responds to real conflicts about whether Washington or the states should control policy areas like commerce, healthcare, criminal law, and employment. Don't just memorize the holdings—know what constitutional principle each case establishes and how it shifts the federal-state balance.
These early cases established that federal authority could reach beyond the Constitution's explicit text, creating the legal framework for a strong national government.
The principle: When the Constitution is ambiguous, the Court often resolved doubt in favor of federal power during the nation's formative period.
Compare: McCulloch v. Maryland vs. Gibbons v. Ogden—both expanded federal power, but McCulloch focused on implied powers (what Congress can do) while Gibbons focused on commerce power (where Congress can regulate). If an FRQ asks about the constitutional basis for federal regulation, these are your go-to foundational cases.
The Commerce Clause has been the most contested arena for federalism disputes. These cases show how the Court has both expanded and limited Congress's reach under this single constitutional provision.
The principle: The scope of "commerce among the several states" determines how far federal regulation can extend into daily life.
Compare: Lopez vs. Morrison—both limited Commerce Clause power using similar reasoning (non-economic, local activity), but Lopez involved guns and Morrison involved violence against women. Together they establish that Congress cannot regulate non-economic conduct just because it might indirectly affect the national economy.
These cases establish that the federal government cannot force states to implement federal programs—a crucial protection for state autonomy within the federal system.
The principle: The Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from treating state governments as administrative arms of Washington.
Compare: New York v. United States vs. Printz v. United States—both apply anti-commandeering, but New York protected state legislatures from being forced to pass laws while Printz protected state executives from being forced to enforce federal laws. Together they form a complete shield against federal commandeering of state governmental functions.
When Congress can't directly regulate, it often uses funding conditions to influence state behavior. These cases define the limits of that approach.
The principle: Congress can attach strings to federal money, but those conditions can become unconstitutionally coercive if they're too demanding.
Compare: South Dakota v. Dole vs. NFIB v. Sebelius—both involve conditional federal funding, but Dole found 5% of highway funds to be acceptable encouragement while Sebelius found threatening 100% of Medicaid funds to be unconstitutional coercion. The key variable is how much existing funding is at risk and whether states have a genuine choice.
Not all federalism cases expanded liberty. This case shows how federalism principles can be weaponized to protect unjust institutions.
The principle: Constitutional interpretation reflects the political and moral conflicts of its era.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Implied Powers | McCulloch v. Maryland |
| Commerce Clause Expansion | Gibbons v. Ogden, Garcia v. SAMTA |
| Commerce Clause Limits | United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison |
| Anti-Commandeering | New York v. United States, Printz v. United States |
| Conditional Spending (Upheld) | South Dakota v. Dole |
| Conditional Spending (Limited) | NFIB v. Sebelius |
| Federal Supremacy | McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden |
| State Sovereignty | Printz v. United States, New York v. United States |
Which two cases together establish that Congress cannot commandeer either state legislatures or state executive officers to implement federal programs?
How do United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison limit Commerce Clause power differently than the Court's approach in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority?
Compare South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius: What distinguishes permissible conditional spending from unconstitutional coercion?
If an FRQ asks you to explain how the federal government expanded its power in the early Republic, which two cases would you use, and what constitutional principles does each establish?
Why is the anti-commandeering doctrine considered essential to maintaining accountability in a federal system? Use New York v. United States to support your answer.