Arguments about federalism related to disaster relief
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: Arguments in support of federalism
Meryl Justin Chertoff, a law professor, wrote an article in March 2025 titled "Trump’s Threats to Withhold Disaster Relief Undermine Federalism Principles," published by StateCourtReport, a project of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. Chertoff’s article examines the Trump administration’s attempt to use disaster relief funding as leverage to secure policy commitments from states. She argues that this approach challenges federalism by violating legal doctrines that protect state autonomy, including the 10th Amendment, the conditional spending doctrine, and the anti-commandeering doctrine. The article raises concerns about federal overreach and its potential impact on the balance of state and federal powers, especially during times of crisis.[1]
Argument: Federal disaster relief follows federalism principles
This argument asserts that federal disaster relief respects federalism by supporting, rather than overriding, state and local efforts.
Claim: The U.S. disaster relief system is structured to supplement state and local efforts, ensuring that states take the lead in response and recovery.
This claim asserts that the federal disaster relief system respects the federalist principle by emphasizing the leading role of states and local governments in disaster response.
- Chertoff argues, "This structure is federalism in action. The federal management role always remaining supplemental... Most disaster response is done by local and state personnel. Federal employees provide additional technical assistance and other states provide mutual aid."
Claim: The Stafford Act and FEMA’s framework require states to exhaust their own resources before federal aid steps in, reinforcing state autonomy.
This claim posits that the Stafford Act ensures that states maintain autonomy by requiring them to exhaust their own resources before federal aid can be accessed.
- Chertoff asserts, "Money from the fund is made available by presidential declaration when local and state governments are overwhelmed by a disaster or emergency event. Under the Stafford Act, a president may declare a situation to be a major disaster, emergency, or fire management condition."
Claim: The historical bipartisan approach to disaster response respects federalism by preventing the federal government from dictating state policies in exchange for relief.
This claim asserts that a long-standing bipartisan approach to disaster relief respects federalism by preserving state authority and limiting federal control.
- Chertoff argues, "For decades, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, the system consistently integrated state and local response with federal assistance — with the federal management role always remaining supplemental."
This argument posits that federal disaster aid must remain focused on emergency response and recovery, rather than being leveraged to influence state policies in unrelated areas.
Claim: The Rehnquist Court’s rulings reinforced the 10th Amendment, restricting the federal government’s ability to use funding as leverage to control state policymaking.
This claim posits that the Rehnquist Court's rulings supported federalism by limiting the federal government’s power to coerce states through funding.
- Chertoff argues, "The administration’s threats also disregard doctrines developed by the Supreme Court in the 1980s and 90s under Chief Justice William Rehnquist to prevent federal overreach into state matters. The Rehnquist Court reinvigorated the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states any powers not explicitly given to the federal government."
This claim asserts that the conditional spending doctrine restricts the federal government from imposing unrelated conditions on state aid, such as the voter ID requirement.
- Chertoff asserts, "Voter ID laws are unrelated to the Los Angeles fires, so the condition, even if imposed by Congress, would fail the Dole test."
Claim: The anti-commandeering doctrine prohibits the federal government from forcing states to enact or administer federal policies, which the article argues Trump’s approach violates.
This claim posits that the anti-commandeering doctrine protects state sovereignty by preventing the federal government from forcing states to carry out federal policies.
- Chertoff asserts, "Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress also cannot require a state to expend its own money or use its own personnel to carry out federal policy priorities... As a 10th Amendment matter, cooperation cannot be forced."
Argument: The executive branch cannot unilaterally impose conditions on disaster relief funds
This argument asserts that the president lacks the authority to unilaterally withhold or condition disaster aid beyond what Congress has specified, as doing so undermines the separation of powers.
Claim: Disaster relief funding is appropriated by Congress, and the executive branch cannot impose conditions beyond those set by law.
This claim asserts that the executive branch must adhere to the conditions set by Congress and cannot impose additional requirements on disaster relief funds.
- Chertoff argues, "If Congress could not impose conditions unrelated to the spending on federal disaster aid that Trump has mentioned, it is doubly true that the president may not."
Claim: Unilateral executive control over federal funds undermines the separation of powers by bypassing Congress’s spending authority.
This claim posits that unilateral executive action undermines the separation of powers and violates principles protecting Congressional authority over spending.
- Chertoff asserts, "Any conditioning or withholding of emergency relief funds by the president would also violate anti-impoundment doctrine. Trump’s now-rescinded order halting all federal grant disbursements thrust impoundment principles into the spotlight."
This claim asserts that using disaster relief funds as leverage for unrelated policy changes disrupts the balance of power between federal and state governments, centralizing authority in the executive branch.
- Chertoff argues, "The dismantling of the disaster response framework during the Los Angeles fires provides a good case study on how the concentration of executive power in the White House will undermine critical programs."
See also
- Federalism
- Court cases related to federalism
- Index of articles about federalism
- Legislation related to federalism
- State responses to federal mandates
- Terms related to federalism
External links
Footnotes
| ||||||||||||||||||||
