# Federalism Powers Crosswalk A three-column map of the American division of authority: powers held **exclusively by the federal government**, powers held **exclusively by the states**, and powers the two levels hold **concurrently** — each with the constitutional text it rests on. Where [[Executive Branch Org Chart]] and [[Federal Judiciary Tree]] map institutions and [[Committee Oversight Crosswalk]] maps jurisdiction inside one branch, this maps the vertical axis: which government gets to decide at all. The three columns are the easy part. The map's real subject is the **four hinges** in its second half — supremacy, commandeering, spending, and emergency — because that is where the columns stop being a partition and start being a contest. Almost every live federal-state fight of 2025–26 is a fight about one of those four, not about the columns. Read the columns as **defaults**, not as walls. The federal government is one of enumerated powers; the states hold a residual [[Police Power]] that needs no textual grant. Every entry in the federal column traces to a specific clause. No entry in the state column does, which is the whole point of the [[Tenth Amendment]]. > [!note] How to read this crosswalk > `■` marks a column or major section · `▸` marks a power · `§` cites the constitutional text it rests on · `⚖` marks a power whose scope is defined by a leading case rather than by text · `⚑` marks a lane actively contested in 2025–26, explained in the Notes · `[bracketed]` notes are dated caveats. Everything named is an **institution or a power, not an officeholder** — this map is built to stay true as people rotate. Case names inside the fence are plain text; the linked versions are in the Notes and See also. ``` FEDERALISM POWERS CROSSWALK — who may exercise which power (as of August 2026) │ Legend: ■ column ▸ power § constitutional text ⚖ scope set by case law │ ⚑ actively contested in 2025–26 — see Notes │ ■ EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL — enumerated; states are barred by text or by structure │ ├─▸ COIN MONEY · REGULATE ITS VALUE │ § Art. I § 8 cl. 5 (grant) § Art. I § 10 cl. 1 (express bar on states) │ → no state may coin money, emit bills of credit, or make anything but gold │ and silver coin a tender in payment of debts │ ├─▸ DECLARE WAR · RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES · MAINTAIN A NAVY │ § Art. I § 8 cl. 11–14 § Art. I § 10 cl. 3 (states barred absent invasion) │ → a state may "engage in War" only if actually invaded or in imminent danger │ ├─▸ MAKE TREATIES · CONDUCT FOREIGN RELATIONS │ § Art. II § 2 cl. 2 · Art. I § 10 cl. 1 (states barred outright) │ → states may enter interstate compacts only with congressional consent │ ├─▸ REGULATE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ⚑ │ § Art. I § 8 cl. 4 (uniform rule of naturalization) + sovereign attributes │ ⚖ field-preempted: Arizona v. United States (2012) │ ├─▸ REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ⚑ │ § Art. I § 8 cl. 3 │ ⚖ scope: Wickard (1942) aggregation → Lopez (1995) three-category limit │ → Raich (2005) reaffirming aggregation for economic activity │ → the "dormant" side bars state laws that discriminate against or unduly │ burden interstate commerce even where Congress has not acted │ ├─▸ ESTABLISH POST OFFICES · PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS · BANKRUPTCY LAW │ § Art. I § 8 cl. 7, 8, 4 (uniform national systems by design) │ ├─▸ CONSTITUTE TRIBUNALS INFERIOR TO THE SUPREME COURT │ § Art. I § 8 cl. 9 · Art. III § 1 │ ├─▸ GOVERN FEDERAL TERRITORY AND THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT │ § Art. I § 8 cl. 17 · Art. IV § 3 cl. 2 (Territory and Property Clause) │ └─▸ ADMIT NEW STATES · SET THE TERMS OF ADMISSION § Art. IV § 3 cl. 1 → no state may be formed from another without its consent │ ■ EXCLUSIVELY STATE — residual; no enumeration required │ ├─▸ THE POLICE POWER — health, safety, morals, general welfare │ § 10th Amendment (reserved) → the substantive content of everything below │ → this is a RESIDUAL grant: it needs no clause, which is why the entries │ here cite no text while every federal entry above does │ ├─▸ ADMINISTER ELECTIONS — registration, ballots, polling places, canvass ⚑ │ § Art. I § 4 cl. 1 (Elections Clause) — BUT Congress may "make or alter" │ § Art. II § 1 cl. 2 (presidential electors: legislature directs the manner) │ ⚖ Moore v. Harper (2023): state legislatures remain bound by state │ constitutions and state judicial review │ ├─▸ CREATE AND CONTROL LOCAL GOVERNMENT │ → counties, cities, school districts, special districts are creatures of the │ state; "home rule" is a state grant, revocable by the state │ ├─▸ ORDINARY CRIMINAL LAW · FAMILY LAW · PROPERTY AND CONTRACT LAW │ → the overwhelming majority of law an American actually encounters │ ├─▸ LICENSE PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS · CHARTER CORPORATIONS │ → limited by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV § 2, which bars │ discrimination against out-of-state citizens as to fundamental rights │ ├─▸ LAND USE · ZONING · INTRASTATE INFRASTRUCTURE SITING │ ├─▸ PUBLIC EDUCATION — curriculum, standards, certification, school governance ⚑ │ → no federal power over curriculum exists; federal leverage is money only │ ├─▸ RATIFY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS · APPLY FOR A CONVENTION │ § Art. V → the one place states hold an absolute veto over the federal system │ └─▸ COMMAND THE NATIONAL GUARD IN STATE STATUS ⚑ → State Active Duty and Title 32 status: the governor commands [Title 10 federalization moves command to the President — see the emergency hinge below] │ ■ CONCURRENT — both may act; conflicts resolved by the hinges below │ ├─▸ TAX AND SPEND │ § Art. I § 8 cl. 1 (federal) · reserved power (state) │ → the single largest concurrent power and the main channel of federal │ influence over exclusively state domains │ ├─▸ ESTABLISH COURTS AND DEFINE CRIMES │ → dual sovereignty: the same act may be prosecuted by both without double │ jeopardy (Gamble v. United States, 2019) │ ├─▸ BORROW MONEY · CHARTER BANKS · REGULATE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS │ ├─▸ BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE · REGULATE TRANSPORTATION │ ├─▸ PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH · REGULATE THE ENVIRONMENT │ → typically a federal FLOOR with states free to go higher, unless the │ statute preempts the field or a waiver regime governs │ ├─▸ REGULATE BUSINESS, LABOR, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ⚑ │ └─▸ ENFORCE CIVIL RIGHTS § 14th Amendment § 5 (federal enforcement power) + state civil-rights acts │ ■ THE FOUR HINGES — where the columns stop being a partition │ ├─◆ HINGE 1 · SUPREMACY AND PREEMPTION — federal law displaces state law │ § Art. VI cl. 2 │ ├─ EXPRESS preemption ....... the statute says so; the fight is over scope │ ├─ FIELD preemption ......... federal scheme so pervasive it leaves no room │ │ (immigration status: Arizona v. US, 2012) │ ├─ CONFLICT preemption ...... compliance with both impossible, OR state law │ │ obstructs the federal purpose │ └─ DORMANT COMMERCE ......... state law struck for burdening interstate │ commerce with no federal statute at all │ ⚑ AGENCY RULES PREEMPT TOO — which makes preemption an EXECUTIVE tool: a │ rulemaking can displace state law with no vote in Congress │ ├─◆ HINGE 2 · ANTI-COMMANDEERING — the wall preemption cannot climb │ § 10th Amendment + structure │ ├─ New York v. United States (1992) ... may not commandeer a state LEGISLATURE │ ├─ Printz v. United States (1997) ..... may not commandeer state EXECUTIVE officers │ └─ Murphy v. NCAA (2018) ............. may not forbid a state from REPEALING its │ own law │ → the asymmetry that makes this the most important rule on the map: │ Washington may NULLIFY a state law, and may BUY state cooperation, │ but may not CONSCRIPT state officials to run a federal program │ → it is politically bidirectional by design: the same rule protects │ sanctuary policies, state marijuana regimes, and 1990s gun-law resistance │ ├─◆ HINGE 3 · CONDITIONAL SPENDING — how Washington reaches the state column anyway │ § Art. I § 8 cl. 1 │ ├─ THE DOLE TEST (1987) ...... general welfare · unambiguous · related to the │ │ federal interest · no independent bar │ ├─ THE COERCION LIMIT ........ "pressure turns into compulsion" — dictum in │ │ Dole, first ENFORCED in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), │ │ which made the Medicaid expansion optional │ └─ ⚑ THE 2025–26 QUESTION .... not whether CONGRESS may condition a grant, but │ whether the EXECUTIVE may attach conditions │ Congress never enacted — a spending-power and │ separation-of-powers problem before it is a │ Tenth Amendment one │ └─◆ HINGE 4 · EMERGENCY AND FORCE — the column boundary suspended ├─ Art. IV § 4 ............... federal protection against "domestic Violence" │ on APPLICATION of the state — consent required ├─ Insurrection Act .......... statutory route to federal force WITHOUT state │ consent; the constitutional default inverted ├─ 10 U.S.C. § 12406 ......... federalizing the Guard; the governor is cut out │ ⚑ Trump v. Illinois (Dec 23, 2025): "regular forces" in § 12406(3) means │ the regular UNITED STATES MILITARY, not federal civilian law │ enforcement — stay denied, deployment blocked └─ National Emergencies Act ... ~150 standby statutory authorities switched on by declaration [mapped separately] │ ■ WHERE THE CROSSWALK IS BREAKING — the 2025–26 pressure points │ ├─ PREEMPTION BY EXECUTIVE ACTION ⚑ The Dec 11, 2025 executive order on a national │ AI framework directs a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force (stood up Jan 10, 2026) to │ sue states over AI statutes on preemption and dormant-commerce theories, and │ to condition federal funds. It carves out child safety, data-center siting, and │ state procurement. The novelty is not the preemption theory — it is litigation │ and money deployed as a substitute for a preempting statute Congress declined │ to pass. [state-AI-law challenges pending as of Aug 2026] │ ├─ FUNDING CONDITIONS AS LEVERAGE ⚑ Categorical threats to withhold federal funds │ from sanctuary jurisdictions have been repeatedly enjoined — on Spending Clause │ and separation-of-powers grounds (the executive attaching conditions Congress │ did not enact) as much as on Tenth Amendment coercion grounds. The doctrine │ holding here is Dole plus NFIB, not the Tenth Amendment alone. │ ├─ FEDERALIZING THE GUARD ⚑ The § 12406 theory used in Illinois, California, and │ Oregon was checked by the Supreme Court's Dec 23, 2025 order. It is an interim │ stay ruling, not a merits holding — the statutory question remains open below. │ └─ THE ASYMMETRY WORTH KEEPING The state column is a residual, so it cannot be "repealed" — it can only be displaced power by power, and each displacement needs its own federal hook. That is why the pressure runs through money and litigation rather than through statutes: those are the two routes that need no new enumerated power and no vote in Congress. ``` ## Notes **The four hinges, and why they are the map.** The three-column partition is the version taught in civics class, and it is accurate as far as it goes. It is also nearly useless for predicting outcomes, because almost nothing contested falls cleanly into one column. What decides real cases is the interaction: [[Federal Preemption]] lets Washington erase a state law, [[Anti-Commandeering Doctrine]] stops it from drafting state officers, the [[Spending Clause]] lets it buy what it cannot command, and the emergency statutes let it act inside a state without the state's consent. The columns say who *may* act; the hinges say who *wins*. **The structural asymmetry.** Every entry in the federal column cites a clause because the federal government has only what it was given. No entry in the state column cites one, because the [[Police Power]] is what is left over. This is not a stylistic detail — it is why federal power grows by *reinterpreting* enumerated clauses (the [[Commerce Clause]] arc from [[Wickard v. Filburn]] through [[United States v. Lopez]] to [[Gonzales v. Raich]]) while state power shrinks by *displacement*, one policy area at a time. A residual power cannot be repealed wholesale; it can only be crowded out. **Anti-commandeering is politically bidirectional, and that is what makes it doctrine rather than preference.** [[Printz v. United States]] protected sheriffs who did not want to run federal gun background checks. [[Murphy v. NCAA]] freed states to authorize sports betting. The same rule is why federal prohibition and state marijuana legalization coexist ([[Gonzales v. Raich]] upheld the federal ban; nothing requires a state to enforce it), and why [[Sanctuary Jurisdiction]] policies survive — declining an ICE detainer is a refusal to volunteer, not obstruction. A doctrine that only ever helped one side would not have survived thirty years of alternating majorities. **Preemption has migrated from Congress to the executive.** Agency regulations preempt state law just as statutes do, and litigation positions can achieve in court what a bill could not achieve on the floor. The December 11, 2025 executive order is the clean case: a legislative preemption of state AI law failed in Congress, so the same objective was pursued through a DOJ litigation task force, a dormant-commerce theory, and funding conditions. Whether that succeeds is a live question; that it was *attempted* is the structural development. See [[Dormant Commerce Clause]]. **On the money hinge, the Tenth Amendment is often not the winning argument.** Courts blocking categorical funding cutoffs to sanctuary jurisdictions have leaned at least as hard on the [[Spending Clause]] and on separation of powers — the spending power belongs to Congress, so the executive cannot invent conditions — as on state sovereignty. [[South Dakota v. Dole]] supplies the test; [[NFIB v. Sebelius]] supplies the coercion limit and the only time the Court has ever enforced it. **On the force hinge.** [[Trump v. Illinois]] (Dec 23, 2025) is an order on a stay application with a three-page opinion, not a merits decision, and this map treats it as such. Its reading of "regular forces" in 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) — the regular United States military, not federal civilian law enforcement — is nonetheless the first Supreme Court limit on Guard federalization, and it landed alongside parallel injunctions in California and Oregon. The [[Insurrection Act]] remains a separate and broader authority that the order did not address. **Caveats.** Tribal sovereignty is a **third** sovereign and is deliberately not shown — it does not fit a two-level crosswalk and deserves its own map. Territories and the District of Columbia are governed under Art. I § 8 cl. 17 and Art. IV § 3 cl. 2 and are likewise omitted. Individual-rights limits that bind *both* levels (the Bill of Rights as incorporated through the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]) are a horizontal constraint on this vertical map and are not drawn. Interstate compacts, the [[Eleventh Amendment]] immunity structure, and the [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]] appear in the See also rather than in the columns, since they govern state-to-state rather than state-to-federal relations. **Officeholders:** deliberately none. This is the evergreen structural layer; the contested lanes carry dates instead. ## See also - [[Federalism]] — the prose page this map is additive to - [[Tenth Amendment]] · [[Supremacy Clause]] · [[Commerce Clause]] · [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] · [[Spending Clause]] · [[Elections Clause]] · [[Guarantee Clause]] · [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]] · [[Privileges and Immunities Clause]] · [[Dormant Commerce Clause]] · [[Eleventh Amendment]] — the text the columns rest on - [[Anti-Commandeering Doctrine]] · [[Federal Preemption]] · [[Police Power]] · [[Sovereign Immunity]] — the four doctrines that run the hinges - [[Dual Federalism]] · [[Cooperative Federalism]] · [[Block Grant]] · [[Unfunded Mandate]] — the models and instruments of federal-state finance - [[McCulloch v. Maryland]] · [[Wickard v. Filburn]] · [[United States v. Lopez]] · [[Gonzales v. Raich]] · [[New York v. United States]] · [[Printz v. United States]] · [[Murphy v. NCAA]] · [[South Dakota v. Dole]] · [[NFIB v. Sebelius]] · [[Arizona v. United States]] · [[Moore v. Harper]] · [[Shelby County v. Holder]] · [[Trump v. Illinois]] — the case law - [[States' Rights]] · [[Nullification]] · [[Independent State Legislature Theory]] · [[Sanctuary Jurisdiction]] — the political vocabulary built on this structure - [[Executive Branch Org Chart]] · [[Federal Judiciary Tree]] · [[Committee Oversight Crosswalk]] · [[Appropriations Subcommittee Crosswalk]] — the horizontal maps this one crosses - [[How a Midterm Election Is Certified]] · [[Electoral College Process Flow]] · [[Redistricting Timeline 2025-2026]] · [[Gerrymandering]] — where the elections lane gets contested - [[Insurrection Act]] · [[National Guard]] · [[War Powers Resolution]] — the force hinge - [[Emergency Powers Crosswalk]] — the fourth hinge mapped in full: every emergency statute, the powers it unlocks, and how it ends - [[Foundations Hub]] · [[Judiciary Hub]] · [[Policy Hub]] — parent hubs - [[State Emergency Powers Crosswalk]] — what the state column actually does with an emergency: the seven lanes a governor's declaration opens and the three variables that decide whether it ends