Dual federalism holds that the Tenth Amendment establishes a constitutional architecture in which the federal government and the states each possess sovereign authority within their respective spheres, and that neither may legitimately intrude upon the domain properly assigned to the other. Advocates of this view argue that the Constitution created a system of divided sovereignty rather than a hierarchy in which federal power is presumptively supreme, and that the Tenth Amendment serves as an enforceable structural guarantee of that division. This viewpoint is associated with constitutional originalists, states' rights advocates, libertarian legal theorists, and a significant strand of conservative jurisprudence.

The enumeration principle. Dual federalists argue that the federal government is one of enumerated, and therefore limited, powers. The Tenth Amendment makes explicit what the structure of Article I already implies: powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or to the people. On this reading, the Amendment is not merely declaratory - it imposes a genuine limit that courts are obligated to enforce.¹⁾

Distinct and coordinate sovereignties. Proponents contend that the founding generation understood the states to be sovereign political communities that delegated specific powers upward to a general government, retaining all others. James Madison's arguments in The Federalist No. 45 - that the powers of the federal government are “few and defined” while those of the states are “numerous and indefinite” - are treated as authoritative evidence of original meaning.²⁾ The Tenth Amendment, on this view, codifies that Madisonian structure.

The anti-commandeering corollary. A major doctrinal expression of dual federalism is the anti-commandeering principle: Congress may not conscript state legislatures or executive officers to administer federal programs. Dual federalists hold that this follows directly from the Amendment's logic - if states retain reserved sovereignty, the federal government cannot simply treat state governments as administrative subdivisions.³⁾

Accountability and experimentation. Beyond the textual argument, dual federalists argue that a genuine division of sovereignty serves republican self-government. When power is concentrated in Washington, citizens lose the ability to hold accountable the government most directly affecting their lives. States as laboratories of democracy - a phrase associated with Justice Louis Brandeis - can experiment with policy, and citizens can exit jurisdictions whose policies they reject. Federal uniformity forecloses both mechanisms.⁴⁾

The Tenth Amendment as judicially enforceable. Many in this tradition reject the characterization of the Tenth Amendment as a “truism” with no independent legal content - a framing the Supreme Court used in United States v. Darby (1941).⁵⁾ They argue that treating it as a mere restatement of what was already true renders the Amendment meaningless, violating the interpretive canon that constitutional text should be given effect.

Dual federalism as a jurisprudential framework dominated American constitutional law from the founding through the New Deal era. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roger Taney, and later under Fuller and White Courts, regularly employed a “layer cake” model in which federal and state regulatory domains were treated as mutually exclusive. The Commerce Clause was read narrowly, and manufacturing, agriculture, and labor relations were understood as matters reserved to the states.⁶⁾

The New Deal constitutional revolution of 1937 effectively ended dual federalism as operative doctrine. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) and subsequent decisions dramatically expanded Congress's commerce power, and United States v. Darby (1941) explicitly demoted the Tenth Amendment to a truism.

A partial judicial revival began with the Rehnquist Court. New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997) restored the anti-commandeering doctrine. United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000) placed modest limits on the Commerce Clause for the first time in six decades. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) held that Congress could not use the Commerce Clause to compel individuals to enter a market, which dual federalists read as a meaningful structural limit, though the decision ultimately upheld the ACA's individual mandate on tax power grounds.

Dual federalists generally regard this revival as partial and incomplete. They argue that the post-New Deal settlement remains constitutionally unjustifiable and that the Court has not yet restored anything like the Amendment's original force.

James Madison is claimed as the founding theorist of dual federalism, particularly through his arguments in The Federalist and his later opposition to broad federal power in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

John C. Calhoun developed an extreme version of the doctrine - nullification - which most modern dual federalists distance themselves from, though they share his premise of coordinate state sovereignty.

Chief Justice Melville Fuller and the late nineteenth-century Court gave dual federalism its most sustained judicial expression, enforcing limits on federal regulatory power through decisions like United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895).

Justice Clarence Thomas is the sitting jurist most consistently associated with this view, arguing in multiple opinions and dissents that post-New Deal Commerce Clause doctrine departed sharply from the original constitutional design.⁷⁾

Randy Barnett, professor at Georgetown Law Center, is the leading contemporary academic proponent, arguing for a presumption of liberty grounded in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and contending that the New Deal settlement represents a constitutional departure rather than a legitimate evolution.

Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute has long argued for a return to enumerated-powers constitutionalism, treating the Tenth Amendment as a structural limit courts should actively enforce.

The Federalist Society broadly, while internally diverse, has provided the institutional infrastructure for reviving serious academic and judicial engagement with dual federalism arguments since the 1980s.

Nullification and interposition. Dual federalists disagree about whether states may unilaterally refuse to enforce or nullify federal laws they regard as unconstitutional. Hard nullificationists draw on Calhoun and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Most mainstream dual federalists reject nullification as incompatible with the Supremacy Clause and judicial review, while endorsing robust anti-commandeering and non-cooperation doctrines as legitimate expressions of state sovereignty.

The role of the Ninth Amendment. Some proponents, notably Barnett, argue that the Ninth Amendment's reservation of unenumerated rights to the people reinforces the Tenth Amendment's structural limits and grounds individual liberty claims that go beyond state sovereignty as such. Others focus narrowly on the Tenth Amendment as a structural provision about governmental power rather than individual rights.

How far to go. There is genuine disagreement about how much of the post-1937 constitutional order should be rolled back. Some advocates argue for restoring the pre-New Deal Commerce Clause doctrine in full. Others accept a broader commerce power but insist on hard limits at the margin - the Lopez and Morrison holdings, the anti-commandeering principle, limits on conditional spending - without seeking to unwind the entire twentieth-century regulatory state.

Conditional spending. The Court has allowed Congress to condition federal grants on state compliance with federal requirements, which dual federalists have contested with varying intensity. South Dakota v. Dole (1987) upheld such conditioning with nominal limits; NFIB v. Sebelius introduced a coercion doctrine that dual federalists generally welcome but regard as underdeveloped.

• Tenth Amendment - Main Topic
• Cooperative Federalism Viewpoint
• New Deal Constitutionalism Viewpoint
• Nullification Viewpoint
• Tenth Amendment History
• Tenth Amendment Debate
• Federalism Constitutional Consensus
• Commerce Clause Debate
• Anti-Commandeering Doctrine Debate

~~FOOTNOTES~~