Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Vigilante Federalism

View through CrossRef
In battles over abortion, religion, sexuality, gender, and race, state legislatures are mass producing a new weapon. From Texas’s S.B. 8 to Florida’s STOP WOKE Act to a flurry of bills empowering parents to sue schools that acknowledge LGBTQ identities or implement anti-racist curricula, state legislatures are enacting laws that call on private parties—and sometimes only private parties—to enforce their commands. These laws were initially viewed as a means of implementing unlawful policies while escaping judicial review. But manipulating judicial review is only the tip of the iceberg. The proliferation of what we term “private subordination regimes” bolsters the right-wing anti-democratic project. It does so by legalizing vigilantism and thus encouraging (White, Christian) partisans to police the most intimate aspects of other people’s lives and force Black Americans, women, and LGBTQ persons out of public spaces.<br><br>The spread of private subordination regimes through states such as Texas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, and Tennessee marks an alarming shift in American federalism. Enacted against the backdrop of a federal legislative process structured to thwart democratic preferences, the Supreme Court’s erasure of longstanding constitutional rights, and the Court’s intense skepticism toward national regulatory power, private subordination laws do not validate Justice Brandeis’ vision of policy learning through “laboratories of democracy.” Instead, these laws (often verbatim copies from state-to-state) promote a larger project of entrenching MAGA policies, insulating those policies from democratic control, and cementing right-wing politicians’ hold on power notwithstanding their numerically shrinking base. Rather than enriching our democracy, this strategy further distorts our national politics and cries out for tit-for-tat reprisals, as blue states repurpose private subordination regimes to advance progressive priorities. <br><br>This Article introduces the phenomenon of private subordination via legalized vigilantism, explains the functions that private subordination regimes perform, and posits that they are emblematic of a new “vigilante federalism.” In this permutation of American federalism, state power is first devolved then privatized by turning it over to private partisans newly authorized to surveil members of their communities and newly empowered (and urged) to enforce the MAGA agenda. Understanding vigilante federalism as both a symptom and an accelerant of today’s corrosive political dynamics, the Article examines how vigilante federalism is reframing power in the United States and explores what can be done to arrest it. <br>
Title: Vigilante Federalism
Description:
In battles over abortion, religion, sexuality, gender, and race, state legislatures are mass producing a new weapon.
From Texas’s S.
B.
8 to Florida’s STOP WOKE Act to a flurry of bills empowering parents to sue schools that acknowledge LGBTQ identities or implement anti-racist curricula, state legislatures are enacting laws that call on private parties—and sometimes only private parties—to enforce their commands.
These laws were initially viewed as a means of implementing unlawful policies while escaping judicial review.
But manipulating judicial review is only the tip of the iceberg.
The proliferation of what we term “private subordination regimes” bolsters the right-wing anti-democratic project.
It does so by legalizing vigilantism and thus encouraging (White, Christian) partisans to police the most intimate aspects of other people’s lives and force Black Americans, women, and LGBTQ persons out of public spaces.
<br><br>The spread of private subordination regimes through states such as Texas, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, and Tennessee marks an alarming shift in American federalism.
Enacted against the backdrop of a federal legislative process structured to thwart democratic preferences, the Supreme Court’s erasure of longstanding constitutional rights, and the Court’s intense skepticism toward national regulatory power, private subordination laws do not validate Justice Brandeis’ vision of policy learning through “laboratories of democracy.
” Instead, these laws (often verbatim copies from state-to-state) promote a larger project of entrenching MAGA policies, insulating those policies from democratic control, and cementing right-wing politicians’ hold on power notwithstanding their numerically shrinking base.
Rather than enriching our democracy, this strategy further distorts our national politics and cries out for tit-for-tat reprisals, as blue states repurpose private subordination regimes to advance progressive priorities.
<br><br>This Article introduces the phenomenon of private subordination via legalized vigilantism, explains the functions that private subordination regimes perform, and posits that they are emblematic of a new “vigilante federalism.
” In this permutation of American federalism, state power is first devolved then privatized by turning it over to private partisans newly authorized to surveil members of their communities and newly empowered (and urged) to enforce the MAGA agenda.
Understanding vigilante federalism as both a symptom and an accelerant of today’s corrosive political dynamics, the Article examines how vigilante federalism is reframing power in the United States and explores what can be done to arrest it.
<br>.

Related Results

Administrative Law as the New Federalism
Administrative Law as the New Federalism
Few doubt the tremendous impact the modern national administrative state has had on our federal system. Yet the relationship between federalism and administrative law remains stra...
The Hays City Vigilante Period, 1868-1869
The Hays City Vigilante Period, 1868-1869
Hays City had started with tremendous rush of success in August 1867. Benefitting from the possession of the Union Pacific Railroad, Eastern Division (UPRR-ED), terminus, Hays Cit...
Federalism’s Non-Interference Principle
Federalism’s Non-Interference Principle
Regulatory conflicts between governments are an inherent feature of American federalism. It seems obvious that the rules that courts use to adjudicate federalism disputes should be...
Federalism in the Shadows
Federalism in the Shadows
<p><span>An astonishing amount of government power operates in the shadows, evading scrutiny. From youth detention centers and federal immigration enforcement to local ...
Federalism and Subsidiarity: Perspectives from Law
Federalism and Subsidiarity: Perspectives from Law
We live in an Age of Federalism. All over the world nation states are withering away as free trade and defense functions are assumed by transnational entities and as power is devol...
Reconciliatory Federalism
Reconciliatory Federalism
In 2015, Canada saw a Liberal government form under the young and energetic leadership of Justin Trudeau. After a Conservative government under Stephen Harper, Trudeau set out to b...
Federalism and State Restructuring in Africa: A Comparative Analysis of Origins, Rationales, and Challenges
Federalism and State Restructuring in Africa: A Comparative Analysis of Origins, Rationales, and Challenges
Abstract This article assesses federalism in the five African federations: Ethiopia, Nigeria, Somalia, South Africa, and South Sudan. By using Varieties of Democracy...
Misguided Federalism
Misguided Federalism
The article considers the effect of the Supreme Court's recent federalism decisions - specifically Lopez and Morrison - on the scope of federal criminal law. The Court in Morrison...

Back to Top