The full text of this Article may be found by clicking the PDF link below.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Rehnquist Court, and the era of devolution have spawned a great deal of scholarly attention on the Court’s role in federalism. The Rehnquist Court itself has been the decider in a number of cases that have strengthened the role of state government under the 10th Amendment, and has led some in the field to argue that this Court waged a revolution of sorts to reestablish the lines of federalism. To find out if this argument has merit, we ask if the conservative justices of the Rehnquist and Roberts’ Courts based their vote decisions on their ideological policy attitudes or on their belief in federalism. We examine both conservative Courts to accomplish our goal, which is two fold. First, we are generally examining whether the prescribed federalism revolution of the Rehnquist Court is still being waged today, leading to the argument that conservative ideology produces more rulings in favor of state sovereignty, and if not, secondly, make the argument that the federalism doctrine of the Rehnquist Court was distinctive to that Court and not all conservative leaning Courts. In the end, this work seeks to add to the expanding literature on judicial decision-making, generally, and the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts, specifically.