McCulloch v. Maryland: AP Gov Required Supreme Court Case

Dual federalism (layer cake federalism) existed from 1865 to 1937, where national and state governments had separate powers without interference. The 14th Amendment protected formerly enslaved people, but the Supreme Court limited its effectiveness. In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson allowed segregation as long as facilities were equal. In 1905, Lochner v. New York prevented states from regulating working hours. In 1918, Hammer v. Dagenhart struck down child labor laws. The Court interpreted the commerce clause narrowly, limiting federal business regulation. During the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs expanded federal involvement. The Supreme Court initially struck down New Deal programs, but in 1937, the Court changed its approach. The Court then ruled that Congress could regulate business through its commerce power and that businesses operating across states should be regulated nationally. After the 1930s, dual federalism became inaccurate as the national government expanded into areas previously controlled by states. Devolution describes attempts to return authority to state and local levels, peaking under Reagan in the 1990s. Cooperative federalism (marble cake federalism) replaced dual federalism, where national and state governments work together on policy areas like Medicaid. States retain control over education, public safety, and roads, creating policy variations across states. States can experiment with ideas like marijuana legalization, with successful innovations potentially influencing federal policy.

In the United States, the evolution from dual to cooperative federalism occurred especially after the Great Depression in the 1930s. Governments took on new responsibilities in areas like healthcare and forest protection. National governments recognized that local governments were often better at handling these responsibilities and delegated new responsibilities to them. Between the 1930s and 1980s, the US moved from layer cake to marble cake federalism. In the 1980s, 'new federalism' emphasized allocating resources through block grants and allowing local governments to retain greater shares of tax revenue. From the 2000s onward, there has been growing emphasis on 'unfunded mandates' where national governments assign responsibilities without providing additional resources.

The United States has evolved from dual federalism (layer-cake federalism), where federal and state governments operated in separate, non-overlapping spheres of authority, to cooperative federalism (marble cake federalism), where federal and state governments share responsibilities, costs, and administration of policies; this evolution is facilitated through fiscal federalism mechanisms including categorical grants (federal money for specific purposes with conditions of aid) and block grants (federal money for broad purposes), with the federal government generally gaining more power over states through these funding arrangements.

Federalism evolved from dual federalism (distinct, non-overlapping responsibilities between federal and state governments) to cooperative federalism (cooperation to solve problems with no clear separation of powers). Dual federalism was prevalent in the 1800s. Cooperative federalism emerged during 20th century crises (monopolies, WWI, Great Depression, WWII), with the federal government providing grants with strings attached (like drinking age requirements for highway funding). The Great Society under Johnson represented the peak of federal authority with programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and student financial aid. Since the 1970s, devolution has returned power to states through block grants with fewer strings attached, under both Democrats and Republicans.

The Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution) grants Congress the authority to pass laws necessary to carry out its enumerated powers, a provision that has been used to justify modern federal agencies, nationwide regulations, and policies affecting citizens' daily lives, creating ongoing debate about whether this clause provides necessary governmental flexibility or transforms limited government into unlimited federal power.

Since the New Deal era, federal courts have systematically interpreted the Necessary and Proper Clause as granting Congress broad authority, essentially deferring to congressional judgment as long as there is a rational basis for believing a law serves a legitimate governmental purpose. This represents a dramatic departure from original meaning, transforming the clause from a constraint on federal power into a mechanism for expansive federal authority.

Chief Justice John Marshall's landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) established that Congress possesses implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to achieve legitimate ends within constitutional scope. Marshall articulated that if the end is legitimate and within constitutional bounds, all means appropriate, plainly adapted to that end, and consistent with the Constitution are constitutional. This interpretation enabled Congress to exercise powers merely incidental to enumerated authorities. The clause subsequently combined with the Commerce Clause to justify extensive federal regulation, including New Deal reforms and cases like Wickard v. Filburn, demonstrating how judicial interpretation progressively expanded federal authority beyond original expectations.

The Equal Protection Clause (in the 14th Amendment) requires that all people receive equal protection under the law. This was part of the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, 15th) that extended constitutional rights to Black Americans after the Civil War. The Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8) allows Congress to do whatever is necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers. This 'elastic clause' has been used to expand congressional powers, such as creating the National Bank and establishing the military draft.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also called the elastic clause, has greatly expanded Congress's powers beyond what framers originally intended. It allows Congress to pass laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed Congress's power to create a national bank under this clause and the Supremacy Clause, ruling Maryland's tax on the bank unconstitutional.

The 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from commandeering state and local officers to use their official time and local resources to implement unfunded federal mandates. This constitutional principle was established in the 1977 case City of San Antonio v. United States, where a 5-4 Supreme Court majority, including Justice Scalia, held that the Brady Handgun Control Act provision compelling background searches violated the 10th Amendment.

The distinctive feature of the current moment is that both political parties invoke the 10th Amendment depending on who controls federal power. Republicans who cite rights on immigration enforcement are often the same coalition that backed federal authority in other eras. Democrats who defended the ACA's federal reach have invoked state rights to resist Trump-era immigration policy. The 10th Amendment has been claimed with genuine sincerity by almost every political coalition in American history because the question it raises doesn't revolve around partisan lines—it is a structural question about how power is distributed in the system. This demonstrates that the 10th Amendment doesn't pick sides; it sets the terms of the fight between federal and state power.

The 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, enabling states to address modern challenges like cannabis legalization and abortion policy differently, which preserves local liberties while maintaining a republic governed by its people rather than a distant federal authority.

The constitution does not give the federal government control over schools, so states decide how to run their education systems. Marijuana law is another example where some states legalized it even though federal law bans it, often involving 10th Amendment arguments.

The 10th Amendment reserves powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states. Before the Affordable Care Act, healthcare was primarily a state issue. The federal government used its power of the purse to federalize healthcare, which the speaker argues was damaging. This trend of making state issues federal issues represents a shift away from the founding fathers' intent of maintaining state sovereignty.