Federal floors, ceilings, and the benefits of federalism's institutional diversity

Preemption Choice: The Theory, Law, and Reality of Federalism's Core Question

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 98-116

  Buzbee, William W ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927079652     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511552007.006     Document Type: Chapter

References (55)

1. Annie Mackay, Daniel Adams, Chandani Patel, Meg Harmsen, and Michael Eber, all of whom assisted with this essay or related research and publications.
2. William W. Buzbee, “Interaction’s Promise: Preemption Policy Shifts, Risk Regulation, and Experimentalism’s Lessons,” Emory Law Journal 57, no. 1 (2007): 145.
3. William W. Buzbee and Robert A. Schapiro, “Legislative Record Review,” Stanford Law Review 54, no. 1 (2001): 87.
4. Robert A. Schapiro and William W. Buzbee, “Unidimensional Federalism: Power and Perspective in Commerce Clause Adjudication,” Cornell Law Review 88, no. 5 (2003): 1199.
5. Edward S. Corwin, “The Passing of Dual Federalism,” Virginia Law Review 36, no. 1 (1950): 1-17.
6. Robert A. Schapiro, “Justice Stevens’ Theory of Interactive Federalism,” Fordham Law Review 74, no. 4 (2006): 2133.
7. Paul Wolfson, “Preemption and Federalism: The Missing Link,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1988): 69, 91-2.
8. Jonathan H. Adler, “Judicial Federalism and the Future of Environmental Regulation,” Iowa Law Review 90, no. 2 (2005): 377, 384-7
9. Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilpern, “Energy Firms Come to Terms with Climate Change,” Washington Post, November 25, 2006. A1.
10. Kristen H. Engel and Scott R. Saleska, “Subglobal Regulation of the Global Commons: The Case of Climate Change,” Ecology Law Quarterly 32, no. 2 (2005): 183.
11. Kristen H. Engel, “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law,” Emory Law ournal 56, no. 1 (2006): 159.
12. Alex Kaplun, “Climate: Rep. Dingell Defends Plan to Limit State GHG Authority, E&E News PM” (June 7, 2007).
13. U.S. Regulations,” New York Times, September 16, 2007, A1.
14. Catherine Sharkey, “Preemption by Preamble: Federal Administrative Agencies and the Federalization of Tort Law,” Depaul Law Review 56, no. 2 (2007): 227.
15. Stephen Labaton, “Silent Tort Reform” Is Overriding States’ Powers, New York Times, March 10, 2006, C5.
16. Richard L. Revesz, “The Race to the Bottom and Federal Environmental Regulation: A Response to Critics,” Minnesota Law Review 82, no. 1 (1997): 535.
17. Richard L. Revesz, “Rehabilitating Interstate Competition: Rethinking the ‘Race-to-the-Bottom’ Rationale for Federal Environmental Regulation,” New York University Law Review 67, no. 6 (1992): 1210.
18. Lars Noah, “Rewarding Regulatory Compliance: The Pursuit of Symmetry in Products Liability,” Georgetown Law Journal 88, no. 7 (2000): 2152-3.
19. Peter Huber, “Safety and the Second Best: The Hazards of Public Risk Management in the Courts, Columbia Law Review 85, no. 2 (1985): 316-17.
20. Kristen H. Engel, “State Environmental Standard-Setting: Is There a Race and Is It ‘To the Bottom,”’ Hastings Law Journal 48 no. 2 (1997): 271.
21. WilliamW. Buzbee, “Urban Sprawl, Federalism, and the Problem of Institutional Complexity,” Fordham Law Review 68, no. 1 (1999) 57, 59-61.
22. William W. Buzbee, “Sprawl’s Dynamics: A Comparative Institutional Analysis Critique,” Wake Forest Law Review 35, no. 3 (2000): 509, 516-18.
23. Robert B. Ahdieh, “Dialectical Regulation,” Connecticut Law Review 38, no. 5 (2006): 863.
24. George Stigler, “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2, no. 1 (1971): 3.
25. Richard B. Stewart, “The Reformation of Administrative Law,” Harvard Law Review 88, no. 8 (1975): 1669, 1684-7.
26. Richard B. Stewart, “Preclusion of Tort Liability: Limiting the Dual Track System,” Georgetown Law Journal 88, no. 7 (2004): 2167.
27. J. B. Ruhl and James Salzman, “Mozart and the Red Queen: The Problem of Regulatory Accretion in the Administrative State,” Georgetown Law Journal 91, no. 4 (2003): 757-818.
28. Clayton P. Gillete, “Lock-in Effects in Law and Norms,” Boston University Law Review 78, no. 3 (1998) 813-817.
29. Donald T. Hornstein, “Complexity Theory, Adaptation, and Administrative Law,” Duke Law Journal 54, no. 4 (2005): 913, 926-8.
30. Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, “The Psychology of Global Climate Change,” University of Illinois Law Review, no. 1 (2000): 299, 307-8.
31. William W. Buzbee, “Remembering Repose: Voluntary Contamination Cleanup Approvals, Incentives, and the Costs of Interminable Liability,” Minnesota Law Review 80, no. 1 (1995): 35, 90-3.
32. Kevin M. Stack, “The Constitutional Foundations of Chenery,” Yale Law Review 116, no. 5 (2007): 952.
33. Michael C. Dorf and Charles F. Sabel, “A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism,” Columbia Law Review 98, no. 2 (1998): 267-287.
34. Jody Freeman, “Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State,” UCLA Law Review 45, no. 1 (1997): 1.
35. Bradley C. Karkkainen, “New Governance in Legal Thought and in the World: Some Splitting as Antidote to Overzealous Lumping,” Minnesota Law Review 89, no. 2 (2004): 471.
36. Bradley C. Karkkainen, “Environmental Lawyering in the Age of Collaboration,” Wisconsin Law Review 2002, no. 2 (2002): 555, 567-71.
37. James S. Liebman and Charles F. Sabel, “A Public Laboratory Dewey Barely Imagined: The Emerging Model of School Governance and Legal Reform,” New York University Review of Law and Social Change 28, no. 2 (2002): 183, 189-90.
38. Orly Lobel, “The Renew Deal: The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought,” Minnesota Law Review 89, no. 2 (2004): 342-396, 461.
39. Eric W. Orts, “Reflexive Environmental Law,” Northwestern University Law Review 80, no. 4 (1995): 1227.
40. Charles Sabel et al., “Beyond Backyard Environmentalism,” in Beyond Backyard Environmentalism, ed. Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2000), 3, 6-7, 13-15.
41. Charles F. Sabel and William H. Simon, “Destabilization Rights: How Public Law Litigation Succeeds,” Harvard Law Review 117, no. 4 (2004): 1015, 1082-94.
42. Susan Sturm, “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach,” Columbia Law Review 101, no. 3 (2001): 458, 479-89.
43. Alden F. Abbott, “The Case Against Federal Statutory and Judicial Deadlines: A Cost-Benefit Appraisal,” Administrative Law Review 39, no. 2 (1987): 171, 176-9.
44. Bradley C. Karkkainen, “Information-Forcing Environmental Regulation,” Florida State University Law Review 33, no. 3 (2006): 861-897.
45. Sidney A. Shapiro and Robert L. Glicksman, “Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Quiet Revolution in Administrative Law,” Duke Law Journal 1988, no. 5 (1988): 819-839.
46. Alan Schwartz, “Statutory Interpretation, Capture, and Tort Law: The Regulatory Compliance Defense,” American Law and Economics Review 2, no. 1 (2000): 1.
47. Antonin Scalia, “The Rule of Law as the Law of Rules,” University of Chicago Law Review 56, no. 4 (1989): 1175.
48. Wendy Wagner, “The Triumph of Technology-Based Standards,” Illinois Law Review 2000, no. 1, 83, 94-5.
49. Bruce A. Ackerman and Richard B. Stewart, “Reforming Environmental Law,” Stanford Law Review 37, no. 5 (1985): 1333.
50. Howard Latin, “Ideal Versus Real Regulatory Efficiency: Implementation of Uniform Standards and ‘Fine Tuning’ Regulatory Reform,” Stanford Law Review 37, no. 5 (1985): 1267.
51. Matthew D. McCubbins et al., “Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies,” Virginia Law Review 75, no. 2, (1989): 431-440.
52. David Kessler, A Question of Intent (New York: Public Affairs, 2001), 250-60.
53. Anne E. Carlson, “Federalism, Preemption, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” University of California, at Davis Law Review 37, no. 1 (2003): 281.
54. William W. Buzbee, “Recognizing the Regulatory Commons: A Theory of Regulatory Gaps,” Iowa Law Review 89, no. 1 (2003): 7-36.
55. Hope M. Babcock, “Grotius, Ocean Fish Ranching, and the Public Trust Doctrine: Ride’Em Charlie Tuna,” Stanford Environmental Law Journal 26, no. 1 (2007): 3, 4-6, 68-71.