Research Summary: The New Federalism

Date: 2026-02-13 Format: Article (~1,500 words) Sources gathered: 15

Topic

The New Federalism: How Immigration Enforcement Is Accidentally Rebuilding the State-Federal Power Struggle America Hasn't Seen Since the Civil Rights Era

Angle: The Trump administration's aggressive federal enforcement is reversing the political valences of federalism. The party of "states' rights" now demands federal supremacy; the party that championed federal power is discovering local resistance. Both sides are deploying the same legal mechanisms — revealing that American federalism has never been a principle, always a weapon wielded by whoever lacks federal control.

Thesis Direction

Refined thesis (post-research): The Trump administration's aggressive federal enforcement has produced the most significant role-reversal in American federalism since the Civil Rights era: the party of "states' rights" now asserts absolute federal supremacy while the party of federal power invokes the Tenth Amendment. But this isn't hypocrisy — it's the system working exactly as it always has. Federalism has never been a constitutional principle held consistently by any faction. It has always been a parking spot for whoever's out of power in Washington. The current moment simply makes that structural truth impossible to ignore.

Research impact on angle: The deeper research strengthened the thesis considerably. The key refinement is that this is not just about partisan hypocrisy — it's about a structural feature of American constitutionalism that has operated this way for 230 years. Bulman-Pozen's "partisan federalism" framework (Harvard Law Review, 2014) provides academic validation. Cuellar's Carnegie analysis provides the Civil Rights parallel explicitly. The Indiana redistricting rebellion provides the crucial cross-partisan evidence. The polling data (85% R / 83% D mirror image on cooperation) provides quantitative proof. The thesis is not "look at these hypocrites" — it is "the system has always worked this way, and naming the pattern is the first step toward taking federalism seriously as a structural feature rather than a rhetorical convenience."

Evidence Map

Sources Supporting the Thesis (Political Reversal)

Sources Providing Context and Evidence

Sources for Counterargument / Steelman

Strongest Evidence For the Thesis

1. VP Vance's "absolute immunity" claim — A Yale Law-trained VP from the "states' rights" party asserting federal supremacy that even Reason magazine (libertarian) calls "absolutely ridiculous." The cross-ideological rejection is devastating.

2. The 85%/83% polling mirror — Republicans and Democrats hold nearly identical intensity of conviction in exactly opposite directions on mandatory local ICE cooperation. If this were principled federalism, you'd expect at least some partisan overlap. There is almost none.

3. Indiana's 31-19 vote — 21 Republicans defied their own President on federalism grounds, with State Sen. Deery vowing to fight "with his last breath" against federal "bullying" of his state. Federalism still has power as a principle — when it's convenient.

4. Minnesota invoking the Tenth Amendment — A blue-state AG citing the amendment that has been the cornerstone of conservative federalism for decades. The Tenth Amendment didn't change; the political landscape around it did.

5. Carnegie's "script has flipped 180 degrees" — Independent validation from one of the most credible governance analysis institutions, explicitly naming the Civil Rights parallel.

Strongest Evidence Against the Thesis

1. The immigration plenary power doctrine is real. Congress genuinely does have near-complete authority over immigration policy. There is a constitutionally meaningful distinction between immigration (uniquely federal) and most other policy domains. States' rights arguments in the immigration context face a stronger legal headwind than in other areas.

2. The non-cooperation vs. obstruction distinction matters. There is a genuine legal difference between a state declining to assist with federal enforcement (protected by anti-commandeering) and a state actively obstructing lawful federal operations. Some blue-state actions may cross this line.

3. Democratic federalism during Obama was not principled either. When Democrats held federal power, conservative states used federalism to resist ACA, environmental regulations, and gun control. Democrats didn't celebrate that resistance as healthy federalism — they fought it. The reversal runs both directions.

Research Gaps

• Direct quotes from the Carnegie Endowment article by Cuellar — WebFetch was unavailable, so the Cuellar piece is reconstructed from search snippets and summaries. The writer should review the original article at the URL provided for fuller quotation.

• Trump administration officials explicitly invoking federal supremacy doctrine — We have Vance's immunity claim but could use more instances of administration officials making the affirmative case for federal power over states on immigration. Stephen Miller's "federal immunity" claims (referenced in Politifact fact-checks) could be another source.

• Conservative legal scholars supporting the administration's federalism position — The counterargument file relies on the plenary power doctrine generally. Specific conservative legal voices making the principled case for federal supremacy on immigration (not just political talking points) would strengthen the steelman.

• The Fugitive Slave Act parallel in more detail — The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act is the most direct historical predecessor of the current dynamic (federal government demanding Northern states enforce slavery laws). More specific details on Northern resistance to that Act would enrich the historical sweep.

Recommended Approach

Lead With the Irony

Open with the Vance "absolute immunity" claim — a Yale Law graduate from the "states' rights" party asserting a version of federal supremacy that even libertarian lawyers reject. This is the hook that makes the reader go "wait, what?"

Build the Framework Through Juxtaposition

The article's structural engine should be side-by-side comparison:

• Blue states passing safe zone laws / Red states mandating ICE cooperation
• Democrats citing the Tenth Amendment / Republicans demanding state submission
• Minnesota suing under federalism / Indiana Republicans defying Trump on federalism
• Historical: Civil Rights-era federal enforcement against state resistance / 2026 federal enforcement against state resistance (same mechanism, reversed valences)

Anchor the Scholarly Framework

Cite Bulman-Pozen's "partisan federalism" concept explicitly: states check federal power primarily through partisan opposition, not principled federalism. But translate it into FTR voice — something like "Federalism isn't a philosophy. It's a parking spot."

The Steelman Must Be Genuine

The plenary power argument is the strongest counterargument and deserves real engagement. Immigration IS constitutionally federal in a way most policy areas are not. Acknowledge this. Then show that the administration's application — absolute immunity, commandeering state resources, retaliating against resistant states — goes far beyond what even plenary power supports.

Close With the Structural Insight, Not the Partisan One

The article's value is not "Republicans are hypocrites on states' rights" (everyone already knows this). The value is the deeper structural claim: no one has ever held federalism as a principle. The Constitution created a permanent tug-of-war, and the side that pulls depends entirely on who holds the rope at the federal level. Naming this pattern clearly is what gives the audience a framework they can reuse.

Tone Note

This topic could easily become a smug "gotcha" piece about Republican hypocrisy. That would be a For the Republic failure. The tone should be structural analysis, not partisan dunking. Yes, the current reversal is driven by the GOP. But the article should explicitly note that Democrats did the same thing when they held federal power. The insight is about the system, not the party.

Source Inventory

• source-01-minneapolis-ice-shootings.md — Two American citizens killed by federal agents; catalyzing events
• source-02-vance-absolute-immunity-claim.md — VP Vance claims federal supremacy; experts universally disagree
• source-03-lawfare-legal-analysis.md — Constitutional law on federal officer immunity, anti-commandeering doctrine
• source-04-carnegie-endowment-cuellar.md — Carnegie president explicitly names the federalism reversal with Civil Rights comparison
• source-05-indiana-redistricting-rebellion.md — Republicans defy Trump on federalism grounds, 31-19 vote
• source-06-blue-state-sanctuary-legislation.md — Wave of state legislation limiting ICE cooperation across 12+ states
• source-07-red-state-pro-ice-legislation.md — Red states mandating ICE cooperation; Tennessee voluntary-to-mandatory shift
• source-08-minnesota-lawsuit-tenth-amendment.md — AG Ellison's Tenth Amendment challenge to federal immigration surge
• source-09-partisan-federalism-scholarly.md — Bulman-Pozen's "partisan federalism" framework from Harvard Law Review
• source-10-polling-data-partisan-divide.md — Fox News/CNN/Marist polls showing near-perfect partisan mirror on federalism positions
• source-11-save-act-federal-mandate.md — Federal mandates on state election administration; extends thesis beyond immigration
• source-12-historical-nullification-interposition.md — 230-year history of nullification, interposition, and states' rights as political weapon
• source-13-prison-policy-ice-data.md — Operational data showing state non-cooperation materially constrains federal enforcement
• source-14-counterargument-plenary-power.md — STEELMAN: Immigration plenary power doctrine, the strongest case for federal supremacy
• source-15-states-rights-as-weapon-history.md — Full historical arc of "states' rights" shifting political valences across eras