The reconstitution of American federalism? The Rehnquist Court and federal-state relations, 1991-1997

This article surveys the U.S. Supreme Court justices' recent opinions on fe deral-state relations with a special focus the Court's 1996 term. Contrary to some claims, the Rehnquist Court is not reconstituting definitions of Am erican federalism or the function of the Court in defining federal-state re lations. What has occurred is a revitalization of a long-standing interpret ive conflict about the deployment of government power within a legally cons tituted regime. Therefore, the debate in such cases as Printz v. United Sta tes, Camps Newfound/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison, City of Boerne v. Flores, and Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe is about how the political principles con tained in the nation's foundational legal and historical texts, such as The Federalist and other records of the American Founders, ought to be interpr eted by the justices. However, despite the limited focus on interpretative technique, the justices' debate about federalism still has important politi cal consequences that will affect future discussions about congressional an d state government power.