The Supreme Court A narrow majority of the Rehnquist Court led by the chief justice attaches importance to preserving federalism. To that end, it has made a series of daring and controversial decisions that purport to limit the powers of Congress or secure constitutional prerogatives of the states. The Court objected that the provision impermissibly violated the Tenth Amendment by commandeering the state government to carry out a federal law. Still other decisions signaled a retreat from federal judicial supervision of school desegregation, prison administration, and the judgments of state courts. Another line of cases has secured the state governments immunity from certain classes of suits under federal law.
Some analysts profess to see a revolutionary development here, but qualifications are in order.
This ruling struck down a California law and by implication a provision of federal law that had authorized it. The decisions have not exactly been hailed by legal scholars, even some who might be thought sympathetic. If this is a revolution, it is one that may not last. Determining electoral districts and voter qualifications, mobilizing voters, and financing campaigns were the province mainly of state laws and customs and were locally rooted well into this century. But that has ceased to be true under the impact of 20th-century constitutional amendments extending the electorate, as well as federal statutes and judicial decisions governing apportionment and voting rights.