The Guarantee Clause and Federalism

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Joe says:

    The clause was cited in cases like Gregory v. Ashcroft, but I think the issue is that it was deemed a political question, so people try to find an alternate route.

  2. S.M. Abeles says:

    Good point.

  3. KN says:

    Is it so easy to move from “domestic violence” to garden-variety “criminal law” (in your argument that the Clause may affirmatively privilege state authority over crim law)? For the former, I think mostly of events that can be cast as insurrections against government (Shays, the Dorr War, slaves turning on masters). I don’t find it intuitive to even be thinking about routine crime or crime policy (e.g., CA marijuana legalization).

    I concede I don’t know much about how expansively the Clause was interpreted in the late 19th c for things like the Pullman strike, but even labor strife does not strike me as being in the garden-variety “crime” neighborhood.