Is Federalism Still Relevant? Immigration and Healthcare Debates Say Yes

Who has the authority to make border security decisions? Who legislates over when and where human life begins? In the United States political system, there may be more than one answer.  Just as it was in the 18th century, federalism remains one of the most contentious fixtures in American politics. Jockeying for the final determination on disputes between states and the federal government continues to be at the heart of the nation’s discourse. Today, immigration and healthcare policy are two of the dominant policy issues where the tension between states and national government is obvious.  

Federalism is based on the notion of “shared rule,” which involves both state governments and the centralized federal government in national decision-making. How effectively these intergovernmental relations operate is an essential indicator of how well American politics as a whole functions. 

The U.S. Constitution brought American federalism into existence in 1789, though the word “federalism” is never explicitly mentioned in the text. The powers not enumerated to the federal government set the foundation for a federalist governmental structure, as state governments were meant to absorb these unnamed remaining powers. Within the Constitution itself, federalism’s origin lies in the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States respectively.” This created the precedent for power to be disseminated to both the federal and state governments with ambiguity surrounding where each has ultimate authority.  

Immigration policy is one of the more contentious issues surrounding federalism in 2024. In late January 2024, even with undocumented border crossings at a comparatively low rate, Texas and the Biden administration reached a dramatic standoff, reigniting the issue. Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) took unprecedented action to bolster border security by installing floating barriers in the Rio Grande River to halt undocumented water crossings. The move troubled President Biden, who denounced the move as a “cruel” and unnecessary strain on U.S. Border Patrol agents patrolling the river. Abbott’s opponents argue that it also increases the burden on the migrants themselves, who face a greater drowning risk due to the barriers. 

The question of federalism appeared when ambiguity arose about whether the state of Texas or the Federal government had the final word over border practices. Governor Abbott argued that Texas had a constitutional right to contain undocumented border encounters, while Biden and the Justice Department contested that “the river barriers violate a federal navigable waters law, pose humanitarian challenges and impede federal law enforcement from apprehending migrants.”

Conservatives assert that in attempting to remove the barriers, Biden was neglecting the duty of his office to dissuade “harboring, inducing, aiding, or abetting illegal immigrants.” They emphasize that in doing so, the state of Texas had no choice but to assume the role Biden had refused to exercise. Across the aisle, liberals emphasize a statute that prohibited “the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States.” They argue the Texas government imposed on the federal government’s constitutional right to maintain navigable public waterways.

The outcome of the struggle between the state of Texas and the federal government has significant implications for U.S. immigration policy. Should a federal appeals court rule that the federal government has ultimate oversight, a stance that looks more favorably upon undocumented immigration will prevail, with greater concern for the safety of the individuals seeking to cross the border. If Governor Abbott wins, Texas will be able to adopt stricter border policies aimed at tightening down on undocumented immigration.

Healthcare policy is another significant issue area influenced by the power struggle that is federalism. Particularly, the debate over abortion has dominated the political sphere for the last five decades. The Alabama Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the personhood of embryos created by in vitro fertilization dramatically advances the conversation on the interpretation of where human life begins. The decision holds that life may start with in vitro embryos that are not yet in utero. The issue became prominent when a fertility clinic was unable to secure their cryo-preservation unit from a hospital patient who was able to enter the unit. There, the patient came into contact with some of the embryos. When the patient felt the sub-freezing temperature of the embryos, his skin burned, and he dropped the embryos on the ground, destroying them. The clinic was found to be negligent, in violation of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act by the Court, which allows the parents of a deceased child to seek damages for the death of their child.

But how does this apply to the issue of federalism? The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling only applied to state law, so the ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rather, the issue demonstrates that under the Federalist system, “state courts are generally [granted] the final word on what their own state statutes and constitutions mean.” Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court gives a certain degree of leniency to states regarding legal interpretation unless they find a decision to violate the US Constitution. The Alabama court’s arrival on the personhood of in vitro embryos is interpreted differently elsewhere, as only three of 50 states have proceeded with personhood laws for fertilized embryos. Brought to the forefront of American political discourse is the nation’s grappling with preserving state autonomy while ensuring that each state remains legally in line with the will of the nation as a whole.

Liberals saw the decision as extreme, with many reproductive rights groups sounding the alarm. They see the Alabama Supreme Court decision as part of the fallout of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) ruling, which overturned the national right to abortion access in the U.S. This monumental case left abortion policy for each state to determine. Those on the left fear the introduction of further fetal personhood bills into state legislatures, adding to the backsliding of abortion access across the country. Many on the left note that the Alabama decision could significantly increase costs associated with accessing in vitro fertilization as clinics fear greater exposure to a wrongful death liability. Fertility clinics may close in Alabama and move to other states in fear of stronger culpability. 

Conversely, many conservatives applauded the Alabama court decision, seeing it as a doubling down on the notion that life, and thus personhood, begins at the moment of an egg’s fertilization. Sources on the right perceive the move as a shift towards viewing embryos as people rather than as property. Conservatives have commended the court ruling for creating consequences for fertility clinics that are “continually promoting and executing the destruction of their clients’ future children.”

The centuries-old conversation surrounding federalism has never been more relevant. The struggle between state and local governments serves as a barometer for the extent to which the nation prioritizes local autonomy or national solidarity. In reality, for American politics to function properly, there must be a compromise between the two entities. So long as interactions between states and the national government are conducted in a civil manner, it is healthy that there is so much contention, as each is intended to serve as a check on the power of the other. Federalism is and always will be intrinsic to American politics, promoting discussion and balancing the scales of influence.