The Long Standing Tug Of War Between Thefederal And State Go

The Long Standing Tug Of War Between Thefederal And State Governmentsh The long-standing tug of war between the federal and state governments has continued unabated in recent years. Discuss how this struggle has played out on the issues of immigration and health care since 2008. In your answer, be sure to mention specific executive orders, laws and court cases that have shaped the balance of power between the federal and state governments on both of these issues. - Essays should be approximately two typed pages in length - Double-spaced and in 12pt Times New Roman font

Paper For Above instruction The dynamic interplay between federal and state authority in the United States has historically been characterized by conflict and negotiation, particularly concerning contentious issues such as immigration and health care since 2008. Over this period, various executive actions, legislation, and landmark court cases have significantly influenced the shifting balance of power, often revealing the complex federalism that defines American governance.

Starting with immigration, the period after 2008 has witnessed a notable increase in state-level resistance to federal immigration policies. One of the earliest and most significant declarative actions was the issuance of the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program in 2012 by President Barack Obama through executive action. DACA provided temporary relief from deportation and work authorization to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors, exemplifying federal executive power to set immigration policy outside legislative processes. However, this move faced legal challenges, culminating in the 2016 Supreme Court case, United States v. Texas , which challenged DACA’s legality. The Court's deadlock resulted in the policy's continued suspension, highlighting the contentious power struggle.

In response, several states undertook measures to oppose or circumvent federal immigration efforts. For instance, Arizona's SB 1070 law, enacted in 2010, sought to empower local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws more aggressively. Although parts of SB 1070 were struck down by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States (2012), the ruling affirmed that states could not enact immigration policies that directly conflict with

federal law, reinforcing federal supremacy. Conversely, states like California adopted sanctuary policies, limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, emphasizing state's rights to resist federal directives.

The Trump administration further intensified the federal-state tug of war with Executive Order 13769, commonly known as the "Travel Ban," issued in January 2017. It sought to restrict entry from several predominantly Muslim countries. While initially barred from entry, subsequent legal challenges resulted in the Supreme Court upholding parts of the order in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). This case underscored federal authority's primacy, but the administration’s continued efforts reflected an ongoing struggle over immigration enforcement and the limits of state resistance.

Turning to health care, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted in 2010 under President Obama, marked a significant federal intervention in the health insurance landscape. The ACA aimed to expand coverage via Medicaid expansion and individual mandates, representing a federal effort to regulate health care markets.

However, several states challenged aspects of the ACA's implementation, especially Medicaid expansion, citing constitutional and state sovereignty concerns.

A pivotal legal confrontation arose with the 2012 Supreme Court case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate as a tax but allowed states to opt-out of Medicaid expansion, effectively granting states significant discretion. This decision created a patchwork of coverage that varies widely across states. Subsequently, the Trump administration's efforts to weaken the ACA, including ending cost-sharing reduction subsidies and efforts to eliminate the individual mandate, further exemplified the executive branch's role in reshaping health policy through administrative actions.

The ongoing tension is highlighted by state-level responses, with some states expanding Medicaid independently of federal directives, thereby asserting state authority. For example, states like California and New York expanded Medicaid under state law, advancing health coverage beyond federal provisions.

Conversely, other states adopted legal strategies to challenge or resist ACA mandates, arguing that they infringed upon states' rights and sovereignty.

In conclusion, since 2008, the issues of immigration and health care have vividly illustrated the persistent tug of war between federal authority and state sovereignty. Executive orders, legislation, and court decisions have alternately strengthened federal power and bolstered states' rights, revealing a complex and evolving system of American federalism. This ongoing balance reflects the perpetual negotiation over authority and policy direction at the national and sub-national levels.

References California v. Trump, 929 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2019).

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012).

United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. 516 (2016).

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

Wilkinson, W. (2019). “Federalism and Immigration Policy: A Clash of Powers.” Harvard Law Review, 132, 1370–1398.

Gonzalez, R. (2018). “The Impact of Executive Orders on Immigration Policy.” Journal of Public Policy, 38(2), 229–245.

Lavaysse, T. (2020). “State Resistance and Federal Immigration Enforcement: Legal and Political Dimensions.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 20(3), 243–263.

Sullivan, B. (2017). “Federalism and Health Policy: The Case of the Affordable Care Act.” Health Affairs, 36(11), 1920–1927.

Baker, P. (2020). “Medicaid Expansion and State Sovereignty.” Yale Law & Policy Review, 38, 275–310.