Progressives Should Embrace Federalism — Redefined

By Brooke Obie, Online Communications Director

Damon Root over at Reason.com has posted an interesting piece that rightly points out that progressives should embrace federalism more than they seem to. We at Constitutional Accountability Center have been making that point for six years now, dating back to our predecessor organization’s publication of the book: Redefining Federalism: Listening to the States in Shaping ‘Our Federalism.’

But we should note that federalism means different things to different people. To some, it represents a zero sum game, where every exercise of federal power cuts into the sovereignty of the states.  To the Bush Administration, “federalism” seemed to be an excuse for federal law to aggressively override state law. But if we hope to stay true to our Constitution’s concept of federalism — based on its text and history — we should define federalism as “the appropriate allocation of authority between our federal government, on the one hand, and our state, regional, and local governments, on the other,” as we explain in Redefining Federalism.

Thankfully, the Obama Administration has been advancing this “good government” vision of federalism. As we noted on our sister site, Warming Law, President Obama issued a memorandum to agency and department heads in May 2009, effectively reversing the controversial Bush Administration policy of belligerently using federal law to displace state law.  Similarly, in the biggest Supreme Court preemption cases this Term – Williamson v. Mazda Motor – the Administration has argued in favor of preserving state trial court rulings as a supplement to federal motor safety laws.

Progressives should embrace a form of federalism that is neutral, not one that is wielded about as a political weapon, one that allows the states to be laboratories of democracy without unduly inhibiting the federal government from acting to solve national problems.  This constitutional federalism should appeal not only to progressives, but to all across the political spectrum who claim to uphold the text and history of our Constitution.

More from

Voting Rights and Democracy
April 29, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority, Once Again, Guts the Voting Rights Act and Further Enables Racial Discrimination in Voting

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais, a...
By: David H. Gans
Access to Justice
April 28, 2026

CAC Release: In Cisco v. Doe Argument, Justices Grapple with the Scope of Liability Under Two Critical Human Rights Statutes

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Cisco Systems...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
April 27, 2026

Human Rights Suit Over Cisco Work for China Heads to Supreme Court

Bloomberg Law
CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen was interviewed by Bloomberg Law about our brief in Cisco...
Criminal Law
April 27, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Push Back Against Government’s Claim of Unrestricted Access to Cell-Phone Location Information

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chatrie v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
April 25, 2026

The Chilling Message Behind Trump’s Attack On The SPLC

Huffington Post
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was interviewed by HuffPost about Trump's attacks on the Southern...
Access to Justice
April 17, 2026

The Most Offensive Thing a Supreme Court Justice Can Do Is Be Honest About the Supreme Court

Balls & Strikes
This Week In Other Stuff We Appreciated Judges Overseeing Louisiana’s Landmark Oil Cases Have Financial...