State responses to federal mandates

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Federalism Banner-Blue.png
Federalism
Federalism Icon 200x200.png
•Key terms
• Court cases
•Major arguments
• State responses to federal mandates
• Federalism by the numbers
• Index of articles about federalism
See also: Federalism, Dual federalism, Unfunded mandate, Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates

State governments may pursue legislative, regulatory, or legal actions to challenge obligations placed on them by the national government. The term federal mandate refers to any regulation or court ruling that imposes a binding obligation on a state or local government, including conditions for federal funding or unfunded mandates.[1]

This page tracks updates about state-level responses to federal mandates related to the following policy areas:

  • Abortion: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to abortion, such as federal rules requiring pharmacies to dispense abortifacient drugs or requiring hospitals to perform abortions in certain circumstances.
  • Administrative state: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to the administrative state, including compliance with, challenges to, or navigation of federal requirements tied to funding, programs, regulations, or directives affecting state governance.
  • COVID-19 pandemic: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, such as federal rules requiring masks or vaccinations in certain situations.
  • Education: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to education, such as federal education funding conditions, rules requiring protections for certain groups of students, and other relevant laws and executive orders.
  • Environmental regulation: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to the environment, such as federal rules for states to reduce greenhouse gases or restrictions on natural resource extraction.
  • Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG): This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG), such as rules requiring businesses to disclose carbon emissions data to the government, mandating or allowing the consideration of ESG factors in certain public investments, requiring corporate board diversity quotas, and otherwise promoting the consideration of ESG factors in business decisions.
  • Firearms: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to firearms, such as federal rules over licensing or federal courts blocking state laws.
  • Healthcare: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to healthcare, such as federal rules banning discrimination, requiring coverage for children, or setting staffing levels.
  • Infrastructure: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to infrastructure, such as federal infrastructure funding conditions, rules requiring that states use project labor agreements for federally funded projects, and other laws and executive orders related to infrastructure.
  • Immigration: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to immigration, such as federal programs that increase the amount of services states have to provide to immigrants (such as healthcare) or otherwise require states to expend resources (such as through law enforcement spending) to support a federal policy.
  • State sovereignty: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates that state officials believe are unconstitutional, outside of the scope of the federal government's power, and violative of their state's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.
  • Workforce and employment: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to workforce and employment, such as guidance for employers on accommodations for workers or rules to force compliance with civil penalties.
  • Work requirements for public assistance: This section tracks state responses to federal mandates involving work requirements for public assistance, including how states implement, challenge, or modify federal rules tying program eligibility to employment, job training, or other work-related activities.

Recent activity

This section tracks recent state responses to federal mandates related to abortion, the COVID-19 pandemic education, environmental regulation, ESG, firearms, healthcare, infrastructure, immigration, state sovereignty, or workforce and employment.

Federal judge strikes down Biden administration's Title IX Rule on LGBTQ discrimination (2025)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Education (ED) issued a final rule in April 2024 expanding Title IX protections to prohibit discrimination in federally funded education programs based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The rule, which aligned with Executive Orders 13988 and 14021 issued by President Joe Biden (D), redefined "sex-based discrimination" to include LGBTQ protections.[2]
  • State response: Twenty-six Republican-controlled states filed seven separate lawsuits between April and May 2024 against ED and secretary Miguel Cardona challenging the expansion of the definition of sex discrimination in retard to education programs.
  • Status: District Judge Danny Reeves of the Eastern District of Kentucky vacated the Title IX regulations on January 9, 2025, stating that the regulations exceeded statutory authority, violated the Constitution, and were arbitrary and capricious. "Discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination based on being male or female," Reeves wrote, rejecting the administration's interpretation of Title IX.[3]
  • State(s): Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.[4]

Federal judge blocks CMS rule expanding health coverage to DACA recipients (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule on May 5, 2024, clarifying that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and certain other noncitizens are now eligible for health coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by redefining the term "lawfully present."[5]
  • Status: Federal Judge Daniel Traynor of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction and stay on December 9, 2024, ruling that CMS acted contrary to law and that the states are likely to face irreparable harm. The ruling temporarily halts the enforcement or implementation of the regulation while the case is being litigated.[7]
  • State(s): Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia

18 States Take Legal Action Against SEC Over Digital Asset Regulation (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued employees of Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange platform, for securities fraud in July 2022. In 2023, the SEC filed lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance, accusing them of operating as unregistered securities exchanges and brokers. The SEC has taken numerous other enforcement actions against various entities and individuals in the digital asset industry.[8]
  • State response: Eighteen Republican attorneys general sued the SEC on Nov. 14, 2024, arguing that the agency’s regulatory actions exceed its authority and violate principles of federalism and separation of powers. The lawsuit claims that states have the constitutional right to regulate digital assets and that the SEC’s broad, unilateral actions, without congressional authorization, undermine state sovereignty and hinder innovation. The attorneys general assert that the SEC’s attempt to apply federal securities laws to digital assets harms consumers by displacing state laws better suited to provide consumer protection. The plaintiffs are seeking a ruling to halt the SEC’s regulatory enforcement.[9]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on November 14, 2024.
  • State(s): Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia

Ninth Circuit revives lawsuit challenging Biden's $15 minimum wage mandate for federal contractors (2024)

  • Federal mandate: Executive Order 14026, signed by President Joe Biden (D) in April 2021, mandates a $15 per hour minimum wage for federal contractors, including universities and other state entities contracting with the federal government. The corresponding final rule, issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in November 2021, sets the specific regulations for implementing the wage increase, including annual adjustments based on inflation.[10][11]
  • State response: Then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) filed suit on February 8, 2022, along with Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, and South Carolina in the United States District Court of Arizona, challenging Biden's Executive Order and its implementing rule. The states argued that the defendants were "lacking statutory authority and violating separation-of-powers and federalism principles."[12]
  • Status: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit challenging Executive Order 14026 on November 5, 2024. Two of the three judges ruled that the minimum wage mandate was arbitrary and capricious and exceeded the president's authority. The case is sent back to the district court for further proceedings.[13]
  • State(s): Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, and South Carolina

Federal judge temporarily halts Biden rule on natural gas flaring (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued the "Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation" rule on April 10, 2024, aiming to reduce natural gas waste from venting and flaring during oil and gas production on federal and tribal lands.[14]
  • State response: North Dakota, along with three other states, sued the DOI, arguing that the final rule] unjustly expands federal regulation over state and private oil and gas production. The states contended that this version exceeds the Bureau of Land Management's authority, violates the Clean Air Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and is arbitrary and capricious.[15]
  • Status: U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the rule in five states, stating, “At this preliminary stage, the plaintiffs have shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the 2024 Rule is arbitrary and capricious.”[16]
  • State(s): North Dakota, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming; later joined by Utah

Texas sues Health and Human Services over privacy rule for abortion (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule on April 26, 2024, that requires healthcare providers to enforce stricter privacy protections for reproductive health information. This means sensitive details about reproductive health services, such as abortion, must be kept confidential and can only be shared with explicit consent from the individual.[17]
  • State response: Texas sued HHS on September 4, 2024, in the Northern District of Texas, arguing the rule is arbitrary and capricious, overstepping federal authority and undermining state enforcement of criminal laws.[18]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on September 4, 2024
  • State(s): Texas

Seven states sue the Biden administration over third student debt relief plan (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) issued a proposed rule in April 2024 to waive some student loan debts, citing power under the Higher Education Act of 1965.[19]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on September 3, 2024.
  • State(s): Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, and Ohio

Judge denies Illinois' request to end the federal oversight of disability services (2024)

  • Federal mandate: Ligas v. Hamos was a court-approved agreement known as a consent decree issued by the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois on June 15, 2011, requiring Illinois to reform its disability services system. The consent decree enforces strict court oversight and monitoring to ensure compliance with the mandated improvements in community-based care for individuals with developmental disabilities.[21]
  • State response: Illinois filed a motion to vacate the consent decree in Ligas v. Eagleson, a subsequent case, in federal court on December 8, 2023, claiming it had complied with the required reforms.[22]
  • Status: Judge Sharon Coleman denied Illinois' motion to vacate the consent decree on August 30, 2024. While acknowledging significant progress, Coleman determined the state needs to "expeditiously" place individuals with developmental disabilities in community−based services.[23]
  • State(s): Illinois

Federal court blocks Biden's second student debt plan (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The Biden administration (D) and the Department of Education launched a new income-driven student loan repayment plan, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan in August 2023.[24]
  • State response: 11 states filed a joint lawsuit on March 28, 2024, against the U.S. Department of Education, with seven more states filing a separate lawsuit on April 9, 2024. The states alleged the administration overstepped its executive authority by creating the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan in 2022. The Education Department declined to comment on the lawsuit but noted that Congress gave the department the authority to define the terms of income-driven repayment plans in 1993.[25][26]
  • Status: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed parts of the SAVE plan on July 1, 2024, but allowed the parts of the SAVE plan already in effect to continue.[27] The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay on July 18, 2024, blocking all of the SAVE plan — including lower monthly payments for about 8 million borrowers — in an unsigned, single-sentence opinion.[28]
  • State(s): First Lawsuit: Kansas, Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Second Lawsuit: Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

Oklahoma attorney general sues Biden administration for withholding funds due to abortion restrictions; lawsuit still pending (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) withheld a $4.5 million Title X Family Planning grant after Oklahoma refused to provide abortion referrals, as required by HHS rules issued under the Biden administration to implement Title X of the Public Health Service Act.[29]
  • State(s): Oklahoma

Alaska sues Department of Interior over the cancellation of oil and gas leases (2024)

  • Federal mandate: On the first day of his presidency—January 20, 2021—President Joe Biden (D) issued an executive order to place a temporary moratorium on the federal oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and review the program for environmental impacts.[32]
  • State response: Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor (R) sued the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) on July 2, 2024, over the cancellation of oil and gas leases on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The state did not challenge the legality of the lease cancellation, instead seeking "to compel the United States to face the logical and legal consequences of its policy decision.”[33]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on July 2, 2024
  • State(s): Alaska

17 states sue Biden administration over abortion leave; Louisiana and Mississippi case still pending (2024)

  • State(s): First lawsuit: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. Second lawsuit: Louisiana and Mississippi

Supreme Court refuses to lift injunction blocking Idaho's abortion ban, upholding federal law (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance in 2022 arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA) requires hospitals to stabilize patients with emergency medical conditions, including abortions if doctors think it's necessary. The Biden administration sued Idaho in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in August 2022, alleging the state's abortion restriction–which banned all abortions–conflicted with the federal law. United States District Judge Lynn Winmill granted a preliminary injunction on August 24, 2024, blocking Idaho's abortion law as it conflicted with EMTALA.[39][40][41]
  • State response: Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) and other state officials asked the Supreme Court of the United States on April 24, 2024, to block the preliminary injunction that prohibited the state from enforcing its abortion law while the case moved through the appeals process. Labrador argued for "the historic primacy of state regulation of matters of health and safety” and that the EMTALA does not constitute “clear congressional authorization” to take control of emergency room medicine from states.[42]
  • Status: The Supreme Court of the United States dismissed the issue on procedural grounds in an unsigned opinion on June 27, 2024, leaving in place the district court's preliminary injunction that blocks Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban.[43]
  • State(s): Idaho

Republican-led states sue the Biden Administration over fuel efficiency standards (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued new federal mandates on June 24, 2024, requiring stricter fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars and light trucks starting in 2027 and for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans starting in 2030. These rules aim to reduce emissions and promote cleaner vehicle technologies under the Biden administration’s climate goals.[44]
  • State response: West Virginia and 25 other states sued the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on June 26, 2024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit over a final rule to increase the federal fuel economy. The Republican states argue that the rule, which requires gas-powered vehicles to increase fuel efficiency by 2% for passenger vehicles from 2027-2031, effectively forces auto manufacturers to produce more electric vehicles.[45]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on June 26, 2024
  • State(s): West Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming

Utah and Wyoming sue Bureau of Land Management over public land rule (2024)

  • Federal mandate: The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a final rule on May 9, 2024, to prioritize land conservation alongside traditional uses like energy development and grazing. The rule introduces conservation leases to protect ecosystems and maintain biodiversity, requiring that public lands be managed with a focus on landscape health and climate resilience.[46]
  • State response: Utah and Wyoming sued the BLM and the DOI on June 18, 2024, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The suit states that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “requires agencies contemplating a major action to carefully consider possible environmental consequences before moving forward with that action.”[47]
  • Status: Lawsuit filed on June 18, 2024
  • State(s): Utah and Wyoming

Tennessee Attorney General sues Biden administration over withheld funds due to abortion restrictions; Preliminary injunction denied (2024)

  • State(s): Tennessee


Abortion

See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates related to abortion, such as federal rules requiring pharmacies to dispense abortifacient drugs or requiring hospitals to perform abortions in certain circumstances.

  • Seventeen states sue Biden administration over employee leave for elective abortions (2024): Seventeen states that outlawed abortion as of April 2024 sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 25, 2024, for including employee leave for an elective abortion as a benefit of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) of 2021. EEOC issued the regulation in an April 19, 2024, final rule. The proposed rule received over 54,000 comments opposing the inclusion of abortion from the definition of pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, and 40,000 comments in support. The rule took effect on June 18, 2024.[51][52] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. dismissed the lawsuit on June 14, 2024, for lacking standing.[53]
  • Idaho asks U.S. Supreme Court to allow enforcement of state abortion law during appeal (2023): Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) and other state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block an appeals court injunction that prohibited the state from enforcing its abortion law while the case moves through the appeals process. Idaho state law prohibits abortions at all stages of pregnancy except in cases of rape and incest or instances where an abortion could save the life of the mother. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance in 2022 arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 requires hospitals to stabilize, according to the department's definition, patients with emergency medical conditions, including through abortions if doctors think it's necessary. The Biden administration sued Idaho in August 2022, alleging the state's abortion restrictions conflicted with the 1986 federal law.[54]
  • Oklahoma attorney general sues Biden administration for withholding funds due to abortion restrictions (2023): Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) filed a lawsuit in a U.S. district court on November 17, 2023, against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for withholding about $4.5 million in federal funds after the state refused to provide abortion referrals, as required by HHS rules issued under the Biden administration to implement Title X of the Public Health Service Act. The lawsuit said, “Title X in no way requires abortion referrals for a State’s continued participation."[55]
  • Texas sues Biden administration over guidance to pharmacies on providing abortion-inducing drugs (2023): Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) on February 7, 2023, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas challenging July 2022 guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that, according to Paxton, violated state sovereignty by seeking "to require pharmacies that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to stock and dispense abortifacients for elective abortion purposes."[59][60][61]
  • Texas sues Biden administration over guidance requiring abortions in medical emergencies (2022): Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sued the Biden administration on July 14, 2022, after U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra released guidance on July 11 requiring doctors to provide abortions in medical emergencies when "abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve [the emergency] condition."[62][63][64] Paxton alleged the guidance was too broad and that the law the rule was based on (the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) did not apply to abortion treatments. The HHS guidance came after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24, overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) and ruling there was no constitutional right to abortion. Dobbs returned most abortion policy decisions to the states.[62][63] For more information on Dobbs and its effect on abortion policy, click here.

Administrative state

See also: Administrative state

This section tracks state responses to federal mandates involving the administrative state, highlighting how states comply with, challenge, or navigate federal requirements tied to funding, programs, regulations, or directives. Examples include meeting grant conditions, implementing mandated programs, adopting federal regulations, or resisting directives that influence state policies and governance.

Administrative state legislation

This section tracks administrative state legislation introduced or enacted by states that relates to federalism. It focuses on laws and policies that address the balance of power between state and federal governments, including efforts to assert state sovereignty, limit federal overreach, or define state authority in response to federal regulations and mandates. This may involve legislation that challenges federal rules, clarifies state roles in implementing federal programs, or advocates for state-based solutions to issues traditionally handled by the federal government.

Enacted state legislation

This section lists administrative state legislation enacted by states in 2024 that relates to federalism.

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=State_responses_to_federal_mandates&oldid=10254561"