Governmental Sovereignty Actions

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 23 | Issue 1 Governmental Sovereignty Actions Ann Woolhandler Repository Citation Ann Woolhandler, Governmental Sovereignty Actions, 23 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 209 (2014), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol23/iss1/11 Copyright c 2014 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Article 11 GOVERNMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY ACTIONS AnnWool handl er* InArizona v. United States,1 t hefederalgovernmentsuedt oenj oi nenforcementof 2 Ari zona’si mmi grat i onl awsonpreempt i ongrounds. Andi nVirginia exrel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius,3 t hest at eat t orneygeneralarguedt hatt hest at ehadst andi ngt ochal l enget he Affordabl eCareActbecausei twoul dunconst i t ut i onal l ypreemptast at el aw di sal l owi ngheal t hi nsurancemandat es.4 Ineachcase, t hegovernmentpl ai nt i ffassert edt hati t hadt hepowert oregul at eapart i cul arsubj ectt ot heexcl usi onof,ori naddi t i ont o, t he governmentdefendant . Thesedi sput esmaybecharact eri zedasseeki ngt ovi ndi cat e soverei gnt yi nt erest s. In aprevi ousart i cl e, Mi chaelCol l i nsandI argued t hatthecourt sshoul d be 5 rel uct antt ocount enancesuchgovernment -i ni t i at edsui t s. Inaddi t i ont ol ooki ngt ot he Court ’st radi t i onalt reat mentoft hese casesasnonj ust i ci abl e, we argued—ashad 6 Al exanderBi ckel —t hatdi sal l owi ngi nt ergovernment alsui t st ovi ndi cat esoverei gnt y * Wi l l i am Mi norLi l eProfessorofLaw, Uni versi t yofVi rgi ni a. Thankst oMi chaelCol l i ns, JohnHarri son, Jonat hanNash, Cal ebNel son, andGeorgeRut hergl en. JohnHarri son’svi ewson sourcesofi mpl i edact i onswereext remel yhel pful . 1 132 S. Ct . 2492 (2012). 2 Id. at2498;see also Uni tedSt atesv. Al abama, 813 F. Supp. 2d1282 (N.D. Al a. 2011) (ent ertaini ngafederalpreempt ionchal lenget oAl abama’simmi grati onlaws). 3 702 F. Supp. 2d598 (E.D. Va. 2010). 4 Id. at601 (i ndi cat i ngt hatt heplai nt iffal legedt hatt hest atutewasbeyondCongress’s commercepowerandi nterferedwi thstatelaw, andent ert aini ngtheaction), rev’d, 656 F.3d 253 (4t hCi r. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct . 59 (2012). 5 AnnWool handl er& Mi chaelG. Col l i ns,State Standing, 81 VA. L. REV. 387, 396 (1995) (arguing, int erali a, t hatsuchsuit sshoul dgeneral lyrequi relegal lyprot ectedi nterest s—such asani njuryli kethatwhi chwoul dall ow apri vatepart ytosue, orst atut oryauthori zat ion); see also Massachusett sv. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 536–37 (2007) (Roberts, C.J., di ssenti ng) (argui ngt hatrelaxi ngt hest andi ngrequirementsforst atesisunwarrant ed);Al exanderBickel , The VotingRights Cases, 1966 SUP. CT. REV. 79, 85–90 (1967) (cri ticizing t heCourt ’s recognit i onofthestat e’sstandingi nSouth Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966)); RonaldA. Cass, Massachuset tsv. EPA: The Inconvenient Truth About Precedent, 93 VA. L. REV. IN BRIEF 75, 78–79 (2007) (arguingagai nsteasi ngstandingrequi rement sforstat es); StephenI. Vladeck, States’Rights and State Standing, 46 U. RICH. L. REV. 845, 848–49 (2012) (argui ngthatCuccinel lidi dnotpresentacasewherethestat ehadanint erestseparate from i tsci ti zensthatwoul dall ow forsuit );cf. KevinC. Wal sh, The Ghost That Slayed the Mandate, 64 STAN. L. REV. 57, 65–66 (2012) (quest ioni ngwhet herCuccinell ihadacause ofacti ontochal lenget heAffordabl eCareAct , butassumingt hattheUni tedSt ateshadan acti onagai nstArizona). 6 Bickel , supra note5, at89 (al lowi ngstat esuit st ocont estt heconst it uti onal it yof federalst atut es“woul dbeafundament aldeni aloft heprinci pl et hatthefederalgovernment 209 210 WILLIAM & MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL [Vol . 23:209 i nt erest srei nforced t he federal i sm principlet hatst at eand federalgovernment s 7 shouldactprimaril yont hepeoplerat hert hanoneachot her. Weal soarguedt hat preferenceforsuit sbet weeni ndi vi dualsandgovernmentenhancedt hest at usof i ndi vi dual s as rights-holders agai nstgovernment , parti cul arly wit h respectt o 8 st ruct uralcl ai ms. Di scouragingsoverei gnt y-basedcl ai mswoul dal sohelpt oavoi d abst ractjudici aldet ermi nat i onsoft heval i di t yofgovernment alact ion.9 Comment at orshavecri t i ci zedrest ri ct i vevi ewsofgovernmentst andi ng, i ncl udi ng ours, asi nsufficientlytakingintoaccountthatdualfederali sm hasbeendi spl aced byoverl appingfederal i sm.10 Theyarguet hati nsoverei gnt y-basedsui t s, t hegovern11 menti sseeki ngt ovi ndi cat ei t sowni nt erests, andthatt hegovernmentshoul deven i sasovereigncoexi st ingi nt hesamet erri torywit ht hestat esandact i ng, nott hroughthem, li kesomeint ernat ionalorganizati on, butdirect lyupont hecit izenry”). 7 Wool handl er& Coll ins, supra note5, at439. 8 Id. at439–40, 503–04;see also Vl adeck, supra not e5, at873–74 (arguingthatexpandi ngst at est andi ngwoul dcrowdouti ndi vi dualsui t s);cf. Tyl erWel t i , Not e, Massachuset t s v. EPA’s Regulatory Interest Theory:A Victory for the Climate, Not Public Law Plaintiffs, 94 VA. L. REV. 1751, 1775 (2008) (argui ngt hattheCourti nMassachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), basedst andi ngont hest at e’sregul at oryi nt eresti nt hefederalgovernment ’sfai l ure t oacti nanareawherei thadpreempt edst at el aw, andt hatsuchst andi ngmaycreat earegi me i nwhi ch“st ateat torneysgeneralhavemonopol ypoweroverpubl i cl aw adjudi cati on.”). 9 See Wool handl er& Col l ins, supra note5, at440;see also Bickel , supra note5, at90 (argui ngthatal lowi ngstatestosuethefederalgovernmentwoul daggrandi zet hejudici al functi on, and bring abst ractdi sputesbeforet heCourt );Vl adeck, supra not e5, at872 (arguingt hatexpandi ngst atest andi ngrisked converti ngfederalcourt si nt o counci lsof revisi on);cf. Woolhandler& Col li ns, supra note5, at442–43 (arguingt hatexpansionofthe not ionofacasedi dnotsuggestbroadgovernment alst andi ng). 10 See SethDavi s, Implied Public Rights of Action, 114 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 8, 51–53 (2014) (argui ngthatseparatespheresnol ongeraccuratelydescribesgovernmentandt hat government alstandingrulesshouldbemodi fi edaccordi ngl y);cf. Katheri neMimsCrocker, Note, SecuringSovereign State Standing, 97 VA. L. REV. 2051 (2011) (argui ngagai nsta popul arsoverei gnt istargumentt hatfai lstorecogni zet heseparateinterestofthestat esi n vi ndi cati ngt hei rright stogovern). See generally RoderickM. Hil ls,Jr., Against Preemption: HowFederalism Can Improve the National Legislative Process, 82 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1, 4, 17 (2007) (argui ngt hatdualfederal ism noti onsareoutdat ed, butfavori ngcourts’ useofacl earstat ementant i-preempt ion ruleofconst ructi on, becausest at eregul ati on wil lencourage Congresstobeamorepol it icall yaccount ableregul at or). 11 See DavidBarron, Why (and When)Cities Have a Stake in Enforcingthe Constitution, 115 YALE L.J. 2218, 2242 (2006) (inarguingforenhancedst andingofci tiest ocont estst ate l awsinst ateandfederalcourts, suggesti ngthata (...truncated)