Federalism

Amongst a global health pandemic, record unemployment, and an impending recession, the 2020 presidential candidates’ healthcare plans have come under renewed scrutiny. According to a Pew Research poll, 68% of voters say healthcare is a “very important issue,” second only to the economy.^[1] Responding to these polls, both President Trump and Vice President Biden agree that healthcare is more important than ever. But this is where the disagreement ends–they offer competing visions of the healthcare system, with Trump pushing for a smaller role for the national government and Joe Biden promising to enhance Obamacare and with it the role of the federal government.

In 2016, then-candidate Trump’s healthcare platform could be summed up in one sentence: “repeal and replace.”^[2] He was talking about The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, which since its inception in 2010 had become a central target for Republican healthcare policy. This year’s election casts Trump against one of the ACA’s architects and biggest proponents, Vice President Joe Biden. Their competing visions for the future of American healthcare, cast anew as a vital issue amidst the coronavirus pandemic, center primarily on the future of the Affordable Care Act.

In the decade since its creation, the Affordable Care Act has come under many challenges, and while it has not been completely struck down, many of the original provisions have been chipped away. The individual mandate, a key stipulation requiring everyone to have health insurance through the threat of penalty if you are uninsured, has been rendered ineffectual through court rulings and a congressional act reducing the penalty for being uninsured to zero dollars. This coming term The Supreme Court will hear a challenge from a group of Republican-led states that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The Court heard a similar argument in 2012 but upheld the individual mandate as part of Congress’ power to tax.^[3] However, since the tax on the individual mandate is now reduced to zero dollars, the states argue that it is no longer a tax. After the death of Justice Ginsburg, this case has thrust the future of the ACA into uncertainty.

While the two candidates disagree on the central feature of the American healthcare system, the ACA, they do agree on several specific policies. Both candidates have pledged to stop “surprise billing” from hospitals, lower drug prices, and create tax credits for lower and middle-income families seeking to purchase health insurance. Overall, while both candidates differ greatly on how to reform the system as a whole, they both claim they will lower healthcare costs for everyday Americans. President Trump argues that he will do so by divesting power from the federal government to the states, giving each state more flexibility over their healthcare plans. By increasing competition in the healthcare marketplace and repealing Obamacare, the Trump administration believes it would decrease healthcare costs while giving Americans more flexibility over their plans and reducing federal spending. Joe Biden’s plan would increase the role of the federal government, especially over the long term if his plan slowly morphs into a single-payer system. Under Biden’s plan, there would be fewer differences between states and less flexibility for states and businesses to provide healthcare. In these competing visions, both candidates hope to make Americans better off — Trump by giving people the option of cheap, flexible healthcare and Joe Biden by expanding healthcare coverage, even if that means more federal spending and less consumer flexibility.

SEE FULL REPORT HERE

The role the United States should play in fighting climate change was one of the key topics in the Democratic primary debates. Around the world protests from the younger generation have demanded that governments hold corporations accountable for greenhouse gas emissions and other practices leading to global warming. In the United States 2020 Presidential election, environmental policy stands as the eleventh most important topic for voters^[1] with around 42% of registered voters proclaiming that climate change is “very important to their vote.”^[2]  For Biden supporters, 68% claim that climate change is very important while only 11% of Trump supporters share that sentiment.

The Trump administration has emphasized the role of the federal government in its environmental policies, attempting to decrease the power of states such as California. For example, the current administration has decreased state emission targets set under the Clean Power Plan. A Supreme Court ruling in 2007 stated that greenhouse gases are within the Clean Air Act’s definition of an air pollutant, and thus can be regulated as such.^[3] Therefore, The Clean Power Plan assigned states different emission reduction targets and provided them with the flexibility to reach these goals.^[4] Opponents of the Clean Power Plan also brought forth lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stating it had exceeded its authority and this would cause States to, for example, increase reliance on natural gas and renewable energy sources for electricity generation. In place of the Clean Power Plan, the EPA has implemented a new Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule which requires that power plants meet much more modest emission targets through on-site improvements in their heat-rate efficiency.^[5] The new ACE rule was done in response to President Trump’s Executive Order 13873 – Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.^[6]

Additionally, the Trump administration reduced the fuel economy standards target to an average of 37 miles per gallon, down from the 54 miles per gallon set by the Obama administration.^[7] This created a large federalism dispute between the Trump administration and California. California had received EPA waivers during the Obama Administration to create its own – more stringent – policy guidelines but that waiver was revoked in 2019 leading to an ongoing legal battle.^[8]

Finally, the Trump administration has shown a desire to revise the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) to eliminate protections for more than half of all wetlands and nearly a fifth of streams that do not have relatively permanent surface water connections to nearby waterways.^[9]

SEE FULL REPORT HERE

Immigration is a cornerstone issue in the federalism debate and a key issue in the 2020 presidential race. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, more than four out of five registered voters report that a candidate’s immigration plan is influential in their decision of who to vote for in the 2020 election.^[1] The BPC report also found that Republicans tend to give more consideration to a candidate’s immigration policy. While 63% of Republican voters would call a candidate’s immigration plan “very important,” only 40% of Democrats would.^[2] Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution permits Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The Supreme Court has limited the scope of state power through consistently ruling in favor of the federal government when immigration federalism conflicts arise.^[3] At its core, the federalism conflict lies between both the state and federal governments and the state and city governments. Specifically, the conflict involves the extent to which city governments and state governments must enforce state and federal policies, respectively.

Recent case law has spurred tension in the immigration federalism debate. Kansas v. Garcia (2020) ruled that federal immigration law does not preempt states from prosecuting undocumented immigrants under their identity theft and fraud statues.^[4] Federalism scholars believe that Kansas v. Garcia points to the growing tension regarding a state’s role in enforcing federal immigration policy, with some states instituting increasingly rigorous measures to enforce federal law, and others avoiding cooperation with federal authorities.^[5] Also, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020) held that the Department of Homeland Security’s intent to limit or end DACA protections was judicially reviewable, and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.^[6] Many other Trump administration immigration policies are percolating in lower courts, including the administration’s widened definition of who can be deemed a “public charge” as well as tightening restrictions to obtain asylum.^[7]

Throughout the four years, the Trump administration heavily restricted asylum eligibility and entry for asylum seekers from the southern border. Allegations of border patrol agents physically blocking asylum seekers at ports of entry and turning asylum-seekers away surfaced.^[8] Questions have arisen regarding the cooperation of border states and their state patrol officers with these restrictive policies. President Trump also declared a “national emergency” to transfer funds for building the southern border wall after a government shutdown failed to produce a congressional agreement for the funding. President Trump’s and Vice President Biden’s stances on continuing to build the wall will influence the role of states along the southern border in the coming years.^[9]

A prominent topic in immigration federalism is the implementation and legality of the sanctuary jurisdiction. Sanctuary jurisdictions limit the enforcement of federal or state immigration policies in that particular area. For example, when the Trump administration implemented restrictive ICE policies regarding the reporting of undocumented immigrants, many cities became sanctuary jurisdictions by barring their agencies from cooperating with ICE regulations and agents. Consequently, both federal and state governments threatened to withhold funding from the sanctuary jurisdictions. Cities within states can also reject state sanctuary policies, becoming anti-sanctuary cities. In April 2018, the California city of Los Alamitos passed an ordinance that attempted to absolve the city from the state’s sanctuary policies.^[10] By May 2020, Los Alamitos repealed the ordinance after charter cities with similar tactics lost their respective legal battles.^[11]

Thus, the position of the presidential candidates on sanctuary jurisdictions and their visions for ICE are relevant to the federalism debate. The candidate’s position communicates the extent to which he believes that a state or city can constitutionally reject a federal policy, perhaps speaking to his perspective on federalism more broadly.

The past actions of the Trump administration offer a perspective into President Trump’s federalism theory on immigration, and Vice President Biden’s comments on these actions give insight into his plan for immigration.

While their immigration policies are politically opposite, both President Trump and Vice President Biden are intent on having states follow their respective immigration enforcement policies, which would work towards the centralization of policies. In both cases, states that oppose their policies will inevitably resist and take legal action.

SEE FULL REPORT HERE