Adequate and independent grounds test?The position that a state court decision that rests on an interpretation of the state's constitution or laws and avoids reliance on federal law will not be subject to review by the federal courts.
Cooperative federalism?An approach to the allocation of government power based on the premise that the federal government, created by the people, is supreme even if its actions touch state functions. Constitutional support for this position is found in the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Dual federalism?An approach to the allocation of government power that is based on the premise that the national and state governments are co-equal sovereigns, each supreme within its own sphere. The federal government, created by the states, may only exercise those powers delegated to it. Those powers not so granted are reserved for the states. Constitutional support for this position is found in the Tenth Amendment.
Eleventh Amendment?A constitutional provision, ratified in 1795, denying federal court jurisdiction over any lawsuit against a state filed by a person from another state or nation. Adopted in reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793).


Exceptions to the 11th Amendment limit on suits against the states.?Suits against cities, state officials, between two or more states, suits brought in state court by private citizens in which the state is the defendant.
Laissez-faire economic philosophy?The belief that business and industry should be free from government regulation.
Missouri Compromise?Compromise legislation passed by Congress in 1820 intended to settle the dispute over slavery in the western territories. The law admitted Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. It declared that all portions of the Louisiana Purchase north of Missouri's southern border would be free. Territory south of Missouri would permit slavery. The law was repealed in 1854 and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Sandford (1857).
National preemption of state laws?When state and federal governments legitimately regulate the same activity, federal law prevails if Congress intends to regulate the area fully or prohibits state regulation.


New judicial federalism?A doctrine that encourages state courts to assume a greater role in the American government system by basing more of their decisions exclusively on state constitutions and laws and avoiding reliance on federal laws and courts.
What did the Supreme Court hold in South Dakota v. Dole (1986)?The Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that withheld a percentage of federal highway funds from states that failed to raise their legal drinking age to 21. Congress may use its spending power to influence the states in areas of authority normally reserved to the states.
Sovereign immunity?A doctrine with origins in English common law holding that a government may not be sued in its own courts without its consent.
Traditional state functions?Those government activities typically performed by state and local governments, including such areas as fire and police protection, sanitation, public health, local business regulation, local roads and bridges, parks, and recreation.


What did the Supreme Court hold in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)?Supreme Court case that decided US Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in federal territories and slaves, as private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process. Federal courts lacked diversity of citizenship jurisdiction between Dred Scott is not a citizen of a state.
What did the Supreme Court hold in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)?First, the Court held that Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, such as authority to create a national bank. Second, states may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government. In this case, Maryland could not tax a federal agency because states could use tax federal agencies out of existence.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Scott v. Sandford (1857)?Supreme Court case that decided US Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in federal territories and slaves, as private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process. Federal courts lacked diversity of citizenship jurisdiction between Dred Scott is not a citizen of a state.
What did the Supreme Court hold in New York v. U.S. (1992)?The Court upheld the incentives for state action established by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, but held that the Act's "take title" provision exceeded Congress's power and violated state sovereignty. While the federal government may use its power to encourage states to pass certain policies, it cannot compel states to take ownership of a problem and force states to legislate.


What did the Supreme Court hold in Printz v. U.S. (1997)?The Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Constitution. The federal government cannot compel state officers to participate in the enforcement of federal law. In this case, the executive branch cannot require local sheriffs to conduct background checks for handgun purchases as required by federal law.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Alden v. Maine (1999)?The Court held that Article I does not provide Congress with the ability to subject a non-consenting state to a private suit for damages in the state's own courts. States enjoy sovereign immunity and cannot be sued in courts they create without their consent.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Michigan v. Long (1983)?The Court rejected Long's argument that the Michigan Supreme Court's decision rested on adequate and independent state laws, clearing the way for the Court correct the state court's mistaken interpretation of federal law. The Court clarified and narrowed the extent of adequate and independent state ground, allowing U.S. Supreme Court review of state supreme court decisions unless they explicitly appealed to state laws.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Missouri v. Holland (1920)?The Court held Congress had the power to prevent game hunting in a state in order to implement a treaty. Federal authority to conduct foreign affairs trumps state concerns about abrogation of states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment; states have no reserved power to conduct foreign affairs and cannot interfere with federal foreign policy.


What did the Supreme Court hold in Crosby v. NFTC (2000)?The Court held that the Massachusetts Burma Law, a law that prohibited Massachusetts' governmental agencies from buying goods and services from companies conducting business with Myanmar (Burma), was preempted by federal sanctions against Myanmar. The state law undermined the negotiating authority intended by the federal law.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Arizona v. U.S. (2012)?The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act were preempted by federal law, but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.