Publication Date
3-1986
Journal
Southern California Law Review
Abstract
The article examines the ideological divide within the U.S. Supreme Court between neofederalism and neonationalism, two legal theories that shape the Court's approach to federalism and individual rights. Neofederalism emphasizes state autonomy and limits federal intervention in state institutions, while neonationalism advocates for a stronger federal role in protecting individual rights, even if it requires overriding state decisions. This divide significantly influences the Court's rulings on issues such as prison conditions and institutional reform, reflecting broader debates about the role of federalism in social reform and judicial decision-making.
Volume
59
Issue
3
First Page
449
Last Page
494
Publisher
University of Southern California (USC) Gould School of Law
Disciplines
Constitutional Law | Courts | Law
Recommended Citation
David Rudenstine,
Judicially Ordered Social Reform: Neofederalism and Neonationalism and the Debate Over Political Structure,
59
S. Cal. L. Rev.
449
(1986).
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/1346
