The balance of power between the federal government and individual states is one of America's oldest and most enduring constitutional debates. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government, yet the precise boundary has been contested since the founding. Today, this tension manifests in conflicts over immigration enforcement, sanctuary policies, federal funding conditions, gun regulations, abortion access, marijuana legalization, and environmental standards. The January 2026 standoff in Minnesota—where the state challenged ICE operations, the Governor placed the National Guard on standby, and the federal government threatened to withhold billions in Medicaid funds—represents the most acute federal-state conflict in decades, raising questions about the limits of federal authority and states' ability to resist federal policy.
Below are the major policy positions on this issue, arranged from one end of the spectrum to the other.
Maximize federal authority in areas of national interest. States should implement federal policy uniformly. Federal funding should be contingent on compliance. The Supremacy Clause should be broadly interpreted to preempt conflicting state laws.
Example: Federal government can withhold all federal funds from states that don't cooperate with immigration enforcement, regardless of anti-commandeering doctrine.
Federal government sets minimum standards and provides funding; states implement with flexibility. Emphasis on partnership rather than coercion. Federal conditions on funding should be clearly related to program purposes and not unduly coercive.
Example: Medicaid operates with federal matching funds and baseline requirements, but states have latitude in eligibility levels, benefits, and delivery systems through waivers.
Tenth Amendment should be interpreted to maximize state sovereignty. Anti-commandeering doctrine should be strengthened. Federal conditions on funding should be limited. States should be primary policymakers on most domestic issues.
Example: States can decline cooperation with federal immigration enforcement without penalty. Sanctuary policies are protected expressions of state sovereignty.
Return to original understanding of enumerated federal powers. Federal government limited to powers explicitly granted in Constitution. Most domestic policy returned to states. Commerce Clause narrowly interpreted.
Example: Federal drug laws, education involvement, and many regulatory agencies would be unconstitutional as not among enumerated powers. States would have near-total authority over intrastate matters.
Federal taxation limited to funding truly national purposes: military defense, foreign relations, interstate commerce regulation, federal courts. No federal funds distributed to states for domestic programs. States fully responsible for healthcare, education, welfare, and most infrastructure.
Example: Eliminate Medicaid, federal education funding, housing assistance, food stamps as federal programs. States can create their own programs funded by state taxation. Federal tax burden reduced correspondingly.
States retain ultimate authority to nullify federal laws they deem unconstitutional. State interpretation of federal powers should prevail within state borders. Extreme version of compact theory—states created the federal government and can limit its reach.
Example: States can declare federal gun laws, immigration enforcement, or environmental regulations null and void within their borders, refusing to allow federal enforcement.
How other nations approach this issue:
No other nation follows the exact American federal model. The U.S. system—with its written constitutional enumeration of limited federal powers, the Tenth Amendment's reservation clause, dual sovereignty, and the anti-commandeering doctrine—is historically unique. The American framers invented modern federalism, and while other nations have adopted federal structures, none precisely replicate the American balance of power between national and state governments.
The examples below show how other federal systems approach similar challenges, but direct comparisons are limited by fundamental structural differences in constitutional design, legal traditions, and the relationship between central and regional governments.
Cooperative Federalism
Länder (states) have significant autonomy in education, policing, and culture. Federal government handles defense, foreign policy, and sets framework legislation. Joint tasks require cooperation. Constitutional Court arbitrates disputes.
Outcome: Stable federal system with clear division of powers. Some variation in education quality between states. Effective coordination on national priorities.
Provincial Autonomy
Provinces have substantial powers including healthcare, education, natural resources. Quebec maintains distinct civil law and language policies. Federal government cannot compel provincial action. Equalization payments redistribute revenue.
Outcome: Significant provincial variation. Quebec separatism contained but persistent. Some provinces wealthier than others despite equalization.
Maximum Cantonal Sovereignty
26 cantons retain all powers not explicitly delegated to federal government. Each canton has own constitution, parliament, courts. Direct democracy allows citizens to override government at all levels. Federal government minimal.
Outcome: Highly stable. Significant variation between cantons. High citizen engagement. Coordination challenges. Works partly due to small size and wealth.
Vertical Fiscal Imbalance
Federal government collects most taxes but states deliver most services. Grants Commission redistributes funds to states based on needs. Federal conditions on grants controversial. High Court generally favors federal power.
Outcome: States dependent on federal funding. Federal government uses financial power to influence state policy. Ongoing tension over fiscal federalism.
Supranational Federalism
Member states retain sovereignty but cede authority in certain areas (trade, competition, monetary policy for Eurozone). Subsidiarity principle—decisions at lowest effective level. Exit possible (Brexit).
Outcome: Ongoing tensions over sovereignty. Some members resist EU authority on migration, judiciary. Brexit demonstrated limits of integration. Coordination on some issues, conflict on others.
Competitive Federalism
26 states plus federal district with significant autonomy. States compete for investment with tax incentives. Federal government sets social policy floors. Large fiscal transfers from wealthy to poor states. Corruption concerns in state administration.
Outcome: Significant inequality between states despite transfers. Tax competition creates race to bottom. Fraud in federal program administration at state level documented.
Get weekly policy updates and new issue alerts delivered to your inbox.
Gun policy in the United States involves balancing Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns. The debate encompasses federal and state regulations, licensing requirements, and restrictions on specific firearm types and accessories.
Abortion policy in the United States has undergone dramatic changes since the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson decision (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade, returning abortion regulation to the states. The current landscape varies dramatically by state, from near-total bans to constitutional protections for abortion access.