This is What “Consensus” Looks Like

If there were ever a topic over which state governments were certain to reach universal agreement, it would be whether the federal government, and specifically the executive branch, has the unfettered right to “preempt” their laws.

Yet, despite conservatives’ purported respect for the states and federalism, for eight years the Bush Administration has aggressively fought to uphold federal preemption of a wide range of state laws, including environmental regulations, consumer safety protections, antitrust laws, and others.

With a new administration about to take office, the states are hoping for a change. Earlier this week, in a briefing paper sent to the Obama transition team by the National Association of Attorneys General, the AGs of all 50 states, 5 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia strongly urged the Obama Administration to reverse this trend, calling “resistance to federal preemption” their No. 1 priority for the incoming administration.

Specifically, the AGs reaffirmed their complaint that the federal government’s position on preemption helped cause the home foreclosure crisis that led to the current recession (a point articulated by then-New York Governor and former AG Eliot Spitzer a year ago). From the AGs’ briefing paper:
Preemption of state regulation by federal administrative agencies lead to irresponsible lending and contributed significantly to the ongoing mortgage and credit disasters at the heart of the recent financial crisis. In the current, failing economy, with housing prices plunging and the number of foreclosures soaring, it is critical that state Attorneys General continue to be “56 cops on the beat,” and be given the necessary regulatory authority to impose appropriate standards on lending institutions.
These statements refer to years of frustration among state AGs, whose efforts to investigate and regulate predatory lenders have been aggressively blocked by the Bush Administration. In addition to calling publicly on the executive to reverse this position, state AGs also filed amicus briefs in two related Supreme Court cases this term asking the Court to resist preemption, and testified before Congress on the need to preserve and uphold state regulatory authority.

In its zeal to further corporate interests (often to the detriment of ordinary Americans), the Bush Administration’s position on preemption ran contrary to the text and history of the Constitution. The Framers created a system of dual-governance in which the federal and state governments share regulatory authority. CAC advocates this same vision of federalism, which ensures states can act as the laboratories of democracy, while also allowing the federal government to address problems states cannot fully address alone (see here to learn more).

Let’s hope that the Obama Administration shows more respect for the vibrant federalism established by our Constitution and supported by the state AGs, not to mention Americans who desperately need the economic, environmental, and other protections offered by the states.

More from

Voting Rights and Democracy
December 9, 2025

CAC Release: Major Campaign Finance Case Tests Court’s Willingness to Respect Congress’s Policy Judgments Aimed at Curbing Harmful Corruption

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in National Republican...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, David H. Gans
Rule of Law
December 8, 2025

CAC Release: Conservative Justices Neglect History at Oral Argument in Monumental Case about Independent Agencies

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Trump v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Michelle Berger
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Pung v. Isabella County

In Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated when a local government seizes real property to satisfy a tax debt and then...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2025

Supreme Court Lets Stand a Two-Tiered System of Justice That Deprives Military Families of the Same Rights Afforded to Civilians

The Rutherford Institute
WASHINGTON, DC — In a ruling that leaves thousands of military servicemembers and their families...
Rule of Law
December 10, 2025

Raises Serious Legal Questions: Wydra on Boat Strike

Bloomberg
Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra weighs in on the second strike by the United...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Al Otro Lado v. Trump

In Al Otro Lado v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is considering whether the Trump Administration can prohibit certain people from seeking asylum at ports of entry.