Against the Rules with Michael Lewis Alison LaCroix on How History Rhymes at the Supreme Court
31 snips
Oct 15, 2024 Alison LaCroix, a legal historian and professor at the University of Chicago, dives deep into the Supreme Court's landmark decision overturning the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. She discusses the historical tension between state sovereignty and federal authority, tracing back to the Fugitive Slave Act's impact. The conversation also explores how the framers envisioned federalism and its implications for modern legal decisions, especially in sports betting. LaCroix highlights how history influences today's legal landscapes, reminding us that history truly does rhyme.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Commandeering and Preemption
- The Supreme Court's Murphy v. NCAA decision involved commandeering, where Congress tells states what they can't legislate.
- Historically, the Supremacy Clause and preemption allowed federal law to supersede conflicting state laws, but Murphy focuses on Congress directly ordering state legislatures.
1820 Virginia Case
- In an 1820 Virginia case, a Supreme Court Justice 'riding circuit' faced a conflict between state and federal laws regarding persons of color.
- Chief Justice Marshall dodged the constitutional question but suggested that Congress could limit state legislative options.
Founding Fathers' Vision
- The Founding Fathers grappled with balancing power between the federal government and states, wanting to avoid replicating France's centralized system.
- They aimed to create a novel system where the federal government had specific powers, with the rest reserved for states or the people.
