In its rulings today and in earlier rulings throughout the 1990s, the court is working to roll back the clock. On the other side of this debate are nationalists and many liberals who say that a strong federal government is essential to a strong United States. They argue that many of the most important and progressive reforms in the nation would not have come without the strong hand of the federal government forcing states to comply with congressionally set standards and laws. Analysts say the trend of the court's decisions raises questions about which federal laws and reforms may apply to the states. The decisions in the Florida cases seem to set up a situation where state governments are free to engage in competitive, profit-making enterprises, and yet they are not bound by many of the same federal laws that regulate private businesses operating in interstate commerce.
Some analysts see it as an erosion of the concept of federal law being upheld as supreme.
Among many strictures now in question are environmental laws, labor laws, and even some civil-rights measures. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a Florida case next term that will determine whether a federal age discrimination statute violates state sovereignty. Wednesday's decision in the Maine case springs from a lawsuit filed by probation officers in the state seeking unpaid overtime compensation. The officers sued in federal court under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But the case was thrown out after the high court's Seminole decision.