Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2025
ISSN
1535-3532
Publisher
Yale Law School
Language
en-US
Abstract
The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors that include the Court’s revived federalism revolution, demonstrated willingness to revisit precedent, and heightened formalism. Part I incorporates three recent Supreme Court decisions into this landscape: Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, and Moyle v. U.S. Part II provides a theoretical roadmap that categorizes and analyzes patterns in litigation currently challenging spending programs. This mapping reveals four lines of argumentation, three testing the breadth of the spending power and one that would limit private enforcement. At least two of the theories are likely to gain traction; indeed, Medina showed some shifts in language, theory, and doctrine. Additionally, these theories cite federalism principles rooted in a dual-sovereignty governance paradigm. But conditional spending relies on cooperative federalism, which is characterized more by porosity than by bright lines. Accordingly, Part III considers gaps and ramifications in these efforts, which could produce shifts in the scope, interpretation, and enforcement of longstanding social programs. Congress may not choose to work more with states if the spending power becomes harder to exercise; and, states depend on federal funding for the safety net’s fiscal stability. Also, federal spending has often protected civil rights, so limits on spending programs may contribute to retrenchment.
Recommended Citation
Nicole Huberfeld,
Spending Programs and the New Roberts Court
,
Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics
(2025).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/4114
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
Comments
Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics forthcoming