Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].
Michael McConnell, Richard & Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University and 23 other legal academics filed a brief regarding federalism yesterday in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the Texas abortion case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is just a taste of the arguments presented:
"The States’ traditional regulatory authority over matters of medicine and public health dates to the Founding. This Court has acknowledged and upheld the States’ primacy in this area in dozens of cases since Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824). The Court’s longstanding reluctance to intrude into areas of traditional state concern counsels against invalidation of the Texas regulations, which would tend to “alter the federalstate balance” in “areas traditionally supervised by the States’ police power.”"
Here's the entire brief, and other briefs.
