Opinion ID: 6978959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fundamental to Federalism

Text: The Supreme Court’s generous, protective interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment reflects its recognition that the Amendment, as the constitutional repository of state sovereign immunity, is essential to the preservation of our federal system. See, e.g., Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 227, 109 S.Ct. 2397, 105 L.Ed.2d 181 (1989) (“[Abrogation of sovereign immunity upsets the fundamental constitutional balance between the Federal Government and the States, placing considerable strain on the principles of federalism that inform Eleventh Amendment doctrine.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238 n. 2, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) (“Our Eleventh Anendment doctrine is necessary to support the view of the federal system held by the Framers of the Constitution..); Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. 139, 146, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) (“The Amendment is rooted in a recognition that the States, although a union, maintain certain attributes of sovereignty, including sovereign immunity.”); Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779, 111 S.Ct. 2578, 115 L.Ed.2d 686 (1991) (“we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact”). Accordingly, any discussion of the Eleventh Amendment must take place within the larger context of our federalism and the constitutional balance it was designed to maintain.
Our federalism is dynamic, ensuring decentralization of power by maintaining an appropriate balance between the federal and state governments even as demands on these sovereignties change. See Richard H. Leach, American Federalism 59 (1970) (“[D]espite the inclusion of a ‘more perfect Union’ among the phrases describing the goals of American government in the ... Constitution, federalism is merely a means to be employed in achieving those goals.... Federalism remains process.”); Carl J. Friedrich, Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice 7 (1968) (“Federal relations are fluctuating relations in the very nature of things. Any federally organized community must therefore provide itself with instrumen-talities for the recurrent revision of its pattern or design.”). The founders were well aware that the creation of a system of government capable of fostering and safeguarding a process which would continuously balance centrifugal and centripetal forces was a necessary precondition of the Constitution’s ratification and of its successful operation. In preparation for the Constitutional Convention, Madison had studied every federal system since ancient times. See Ralph Ketcham, James Madison: A Biography 183-85 (1971); Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution 43 (1996) (“[Madison]' closed each section of his notes on this reading with a short but pointed list of the ‘vices of the constitution’ of the particular confederation he had just studied, the peculiar structural and political defects that compromised its strength and vigor.”). Madison’s experiences as a.state legislator and federal representative had made him a proponent of a stronger national government than that afforded by the Articles of Confederation. See, e.g., id. at 36-46. His support for a strong national government, however, was well tempered by his belief in the importance of divided power. See Francis R. Greene, Madison’s Views of Federalism in the Federalist, 24 Publius 47, 60 (1994) (characterizing Madison as “only a moderate nationalist, a supporter of energetic national government within a republican — and federal' — framework”). In The Federalist Papers, both he and Hamilton emphasized the strong role the states were expected to play in the new federation. See The Federalist No. 9, at 76 (Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (“The proposed Constitution, so far from implying abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty ... and leaves in them possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.”); The Federalist No. 17, at 120 (Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (fact that states would be responsible for administration of civil and criminal justice would “render them at all times a complete counterpoise, and, not unfrequently, dangerous rivals to the power of the Union”); The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (jurisdiction of the national government “extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects”); The Federalist No. 4-5, at 292 (Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”). Madison’s nationalism had been tempered in the Convention by the adoption of an equal state vote in the Senate. See Ralph Ketch-am, James Madison: A Biography 303, 314 (1971). It was further modified by his subsequent experiences as a high federal official, president, and -student of developments at the end of the 18th and early 19th centuries. See id. at 314 (“[Madison’s] nationalism waned as he saw the federal impotence of the last days of the old confederation replaced by the sweeping national possibilities envisioned by [Hamilton’s] Report on Public Credit. Separation and balance of powers seemed utterly lost.”). During the 1790’s, as Hamilton’s Federalist party followed an increasingly centralized approach to public policy, Madison would join with Thomas Jefferson to champion diversity as an instrument superior to imposed national unity for the pursuit of the “common good,” and he would seize upon a strict construction of constitutional grants of power to Congress as the bulwark of liberty in the face of what he viewed as outrageous transgressions. Harry N. Scheiber, Federalism and the Constitution: The Original Understanding, in American Law and the Constitutional Order 85, 97 (1978). Madison accurately predicted that far into the future states would predominate over the national government. The Federalist No. 46 (Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). The pre-Civil War discussion of nullification and interposition demonstrates the vehemence with which the supremacy of state sovereignty continued to be asserted more than half a century after adoption of the Constitution. See Ralph Ketcham, James Madison: A Biography 64(M6 (1971). Until the outbreak of the Civil War, the states — each with “its own particular ‘mix’ of public policy ... and with its own set of rules in the establishment of priorities for economic development” — were the centers of power in many areas of importance. Harry Scheiber, Federalism and the American Economic Order, 1789-1910, Law and Soc’y (Fall 1975) 57, 97. See generally id. at 86-100 (discussing diffusion of power and decentralization of control over policy in the antebellum years). The subsequent expansion of central power resulted in part from ratification of the post-Civil War Amendments and the increasingly broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause and spending power in response to the growth of our national technological, economic and social systems. Nevertheless, even the Civil War, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and enormous recent changes in our culture, did not alter our essential federal constitutional structure. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 159, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (“The actual scope of the Federal Government’s authority with respect to the States has changed over the years ... but the constitutional structure underlying and limiting that authority has not.”). In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 19 L.Ed. 227 (1868), decided the same year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court famously declared: the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. Id., 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) at 725. Well' over a century later, the nation continues to adhere to the same principle of both state and national sovereignty.
The continuing potency of the states has recently been emphasized by the Supreme Court in a series of cases demonstrating an increased sensitivity to state independence. See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997) (holding unconstitutional the enforcement provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks on gun purchasers); id. at --, 117 S.Ct. at 2383 (“[T]he whole object of the law [is] to direct the functioning of the state executive, and hence to compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty .... It is the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends.... ”); Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars Congress from using its power under the Indian Commerce Clause of Article I to expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III); id. at 72, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (“[W]e reconfirm that the background principle of state sovereign immunity embodied in the Eleventh Amendment is not so ephemeral as to dissipate when the subject of the suit is an area, like the regulation of Indian commerce, that is under the exclusive control of the Federal Government”); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause); id. at 567, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (“To uphold the Government’s contentions here ... would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.”); id. at 578, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (“[T]he federal balance is too essential a part qf our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or the other level of Government has tipped the scales too far.”); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (holding unconstitutional “take-title” provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985); id. at 178, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (“No matter how powerful the federal interest involved, the Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.”). These decisions iterate with renewed vigor the system of “dual sovereignty” envisioned by the framers and established by the Constitution with the fundamental goal of preventing the expansion of state or federal governmental power at the expense of the liberty of individuals. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (“State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991) (“[A] healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny from either front.”); id. at 459, 111 S.Ct. 2395 (“In the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty.”). They recognize that our federal governmental structure affords its citizens increased liberty through increased political accountability. As the court stated in Lopez, “[t]he theory that two governments accord more -liberty than one requires for its realization two distinct and discernible lines of political accountability: one between the citizens and the Federal Government; the second between the citizens and the States.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 576, 115 S.Ct. 1624.
The framers envisioned from the outset the prominent role the political process would play in preventing the accumulation of national power at the expense of local interests. See James Thomas Flexner, The Young Hamilton 393 (1978) (“Hamilton and Madison responded [to objections to central power by Rhode Island in 1782] with arguments that presaged their defense of the-eventual national Constitution in The Federalist. The security of general liberty lay not in clipping the wings of the central authority, but in frequent elections and rotation of offices that would keep the central power representative of all interests.”). Madison’s own experience as Virginia’s representative under the Articles of Confederation gave him a first-hand practical appreciation for how federal representatives must balance their dual responsibilities to their state and to the nation. See Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution 38 (1996) (“The recurring need to balance national and state loyalties shaped the development of Madison’s political thinking in important ways.”). “The prepossessions, which the members [of Congress] themselves w[ould] carry into the federal government, w[ould] generally be favourable to the States.” The Federalist No. 16, at 296 (Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). This was not only a background assumption of the constitutional plan, but a prerequisite for its successful functioning, which would depend on the assertion of a multiplicity of interests and points of view. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 10, at 83 (Madison) (Clinton Rossiter, ed., 1961) (“Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”). Scholars and commentators have identified a number of features of the national political process which serve to maintain the strong position of the states in the federal system. Some of these protective mechanisms, such as the Electoral College and the equal state vote in the Senate, are components of our formal, constitutional structure. See, e.g. Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government, 54 Colum.L.Rev. 543, 558 (1954) (outlining the structural safeguards of federalism built into the Constitution and emphasizing “the role of the states in the composition and selection of the central government [as] intrinsically well adapted to retarding or restraining new intrusions by the center on the domain of the states”); Daniel J. Elazar, Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations in Cooperation and Conflict: Readings in American Federalism 9 (Daniel J. Elazar, et al. eds., 1969) (“[Pjeople and their interests gain formal representation in the councils of government through their location in particular places and their ability to capture political control of territorial political units.”); David L. Shapiro, Federalism: A Dialogue 116-117 (1995) (discussing the “significant structural reasons for the retention of state authority in so many areas of general importance” and the “built in role of the states in the administration of the central government”). Other checks on the national power are nonstruetural in nature. That is, they are rooted in the political process itself. See, e.g., Elizabeth Garrett, Enhancing the Political Safeguards of Federalism? The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 45 U.Kan. L.Rev. 1113,1114 (1996) (discussing “possible safeguards of federalism that are truly political, giving due attention to political institu-' tions, politicians and interest groups”); D. Brace La Pierre, Political Accountability in the National Political Process — The Alternative to Judicial Review of Federalism Issues, 80 Nw.L.Rev. 577, 633 (1982) (“[Political checks and Congress’ political accountability, and not simply the representation of state interests in Congress by representatives elected from the states, are the political safeguards of federalism.”); Larry Kramer, Understanding Federalism, 47 Vand.L.Rev. 1485, 1520-47 (1994) (arguing that the political party system and extensive interactions between federal and state administrators play a particularly important role in protecting state autonomy). Despite the general effectiveness of these formal and informal mechanisms in protecting state interests, the potential for breakdowns in the political process exists. Such “process failures” threaten both the autonomy of the states and the representativeness of the national government itself. See An-drzej Rapaczynski, From Sovereignty to Process: The Jurisprudence of Federalism After Garcia, 1985 Sup.Ct.Rev. 341, 394. (“[I]n undermining the states, the federal government at the same time undercuts those very features of the national political process as a whole (on both the state and national level) on which its own health crucially depends.”). The Supreme Court has rejected the idea that political safeguards are sufficient, in and of themselves, to protect the states against federal overreaching. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98, ---, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 2382-83, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 168-69, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992); see also La Pierre, supra, at 665 (“[I]f Congress is not politically accountable, national statutes that intrude on state interests are not justified, and judicially imposed restrictions on Congress’ powers are necessary to protect the states.”). Rapaczynski, 1985 Sup.Ct.Rev. at 380-419 (analyzing political processes which serve to protect federalism and failures in those processes which may warrant judicial scrutiny). In both New York v. United States, 505 U.S. at 168-69, 112 S.Ct. 2408, and Printz v. United States, at - -, 117 S.Ct. at 2382-83, the Court recognized- that “process failures” had blurred the lines of political accountability between state and federal representatives to the detriment of our system of dual sovereignty. In New York v. United States the Court reasoned that “where the Federal Government directs the States to regulate, it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. at 169, 112 S.Ct. 2408. The Court’s decision in Printz rested in part on a similar rationale: By forcing state governments to absorb the financial burden of implementing a federal regulatory program, Members of Congress can take credit for “solving” problems without having to ask their constituents to pay higher taxes. And even when the States are not forced to absorb the costs of implementing a federal program, they are still put in the position of taking the blame for its burdensomeness and for its defects. Printz, at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2382. While the federalism-based considerations permeating these decisions do not constitute an absolute restraint on congressional action, they do demonstrate the Court’s reluctance to uphold federal legislation that distorts the balanced federal-state political process. Application of the FCA’s qui tam provisions to the states interferes with the political process in ways which seriously undermine the position of the states vis-á-vis the federal government. As will be demonstrated in Part IV.C.3, infra, assigning the federal government’s decision to sue a state to private qui tam plaintiffs — who are accountable to no one and motivated primarily by the hope of financial gain — prevents congresspersons from fulfilling their representative function of interceding on behalf of their home states in disputes with the federal government and interferes in the cooperative relationships between state agencies and their federal counterparts.