The Supreme Court’s upcoming case on who holds the final say on election rules would be largely confined to the pages of law review journals and backrooms of state legislatures in any other era, but in the era of Trump, the case has taken on melodramatic proportions with liberal activists warning that nothing short of American democracy is at stake.

As briefing nears its close, the battle lines are emerging in Moore v. Harper – the case in which the Supreme Court will consider whether to adopt some form of the independent state legislature (ISL) theory. As a refresher, the ISL theory contends that state legislatures may regulate federal elections free of any checks by other state-level actors. So, under the theory, no state constitutional provisions, no state court, and potentially no governor’s veto could constrain a state legislature’s exercise of power over federal elections.

Let's begin with a few words about the Dormant Commerce Clause and how it interacts with federalism principles.

The U.S. Constitution presumptively preserves state authority to control what happens within state borders, especially state power to protect citizens and residents from what legislators or voters perceive as harms. This state "police power" to regulate "health, safety, and morals" is implicitly acknowledged by the Constitution's struc­­­ture of enumerated powers, and by the Tenth Amendment.[1]

Texas attorney general Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration on Thursday over a memo it sent to hospitals and doctors across the country saying health-care providers are required under federal law to perform abortions in emergency situations regardless of state laws.

The memo warns that health care providers who fail to comply could face legal trouble and the loss of their participation in federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to take up the most significant abortion case in nearly 50 years, a dozen Republicans senators, including Utah Sen. Mike Lee, advocated for returning the issue to states.

The justices will hear arguments Wednesday over a Mississippi law that banned nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, allowing them only in medical emergencies or cases of severe fetal abnormality.

Roe v. Wade is, by American standards, an ancient controversy — one that seems likely to be resolved in the near future in a way that progressives are not going to like.

There is some poetic justice in that.

George Washington had an uncanny knack for getting things right at the last minute. As general of the Continental Army, Washington defused a conspiracy within his officer corps to revolt at the tail end of the Revolutionary War in the spring of 1783. Such a military revolt could have snuffed out American democracy in its infancy. In his old age, Washington, who had owned slaves since he was a young boy, ensured that all of his slaves would be freed upon his wife Martha’s death through his will. 

Revived federalism is a start, but it doesn’t go far enough.

Imagine a world in which your favorite policy proposals are no longer blocked by Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Bernie Sanders, or Ted Cruz. In this world, Washington’s longstanding partisan warfare no longer paralyzes action on health care, welfare, education, and infrastructure.

Impossible? Not at all. The simple solution is federalism. Rather than watch lawmakers in Washington fight for the right to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on America, we can let state governments, which are closer to the people, tailor local solutions to local problems.

We generally favor deferring to tradition, but the fact that Republicans have been wrong on marijuana for a very long time is no reason for them to keep being wrong.

And Republicans have it very wrong on marijuana — or all but five of them do: The House has passed a marijuana-decriminalization bill largely along partisan lines, with only five Republicans voting in support of the measure, while only six Democrats opposed it. The bill is expected to die in Mitch McConnell’s Senate.