The courts have ruled for the State in one case and against the State in the other. In the first, Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, the Court noted that, despite its abdication argument, the state retained ultimate responsibility for local non-compliance with laws. 40 40 Henrietta D., 331 F.3d to 265 (with the finding that the respondent State is not protected by sovereign immunity and is obliged to monitor the actual provision of services). In particular, the court considered whether the state was responsible for New York City`s failure to house the HIV-positive plaintiffs for the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs. 41 41 Id., pp. 284-87 (Discussion of whether the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act required the respondent State to “monitor the conduct of subordinate government agencies providing direct social services”). Close It noted that this was: while the Rehabilitation Act does not prima facie require states to oversee their local governments, “Congress` intention is best. by imposing a duty of control on the State. 42 42 id. at 285, 287.
Close Abdication also exists outside of legal disputes. States may exist in a state of abdication even before they have put forward arguments for abdication in a legal dispute. We expect the same compliance and representation concerns described below, 155,155 See section II.A. Close to pre-trial abdication. Before the Meiji Restoration, Japan had eleven reigning empresses. More than half of Japan`s empresses abdicated as soon as a suitable male descendant was considered old enough to rule. There are also no provisions on abdication in the Imperial Budget Law, the Meiji Constitution, or the current Constitution of Japan of 1947. This article will also explain why and how delegation becomes abdication (section II.B).
He argues that the abdication is a consequence of the overlay of federal responsibilities with the complex legal and political relationships that already exist between states and their local governments. If highly decentralized states delegate their federal responsibilities to highly autonomous local governments, officials in those states are likely to believe that they do not have the power to oversee their local governments and, if necessary, align them. 25 25 See notes 197 to 204 below and accompanying text. Narrow states across the political spectrum — including states where one might expect resistance to federal laws and states that usually sympathize with federal law — regularly transfer their federal responsibilities to local governments and try to avoid accountability in court. But first a work of definition. I understand that the abdication arguments consist of a combination of three positions, often expressed in tandem, aimed at avoiding liability for local non-compliance: (1) The State is not responsible for local non-compliance, 28 28 See, for example, the appellants` letter at 28-42, United States v. Missouri, 535 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (No.
07-2322), 2007 WL 6603869 (arguing that local election administrators are not state actors, so Missouri cannot be held responsible for non-compliance with the National Voter Registration Act). Close (2) the state is unaware of local non-compliance because it does not monitor or monitor local actions, 29 29 See, for example, Armstrong v. Brown (Armstrong II), 732 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that “California`s continued failure to train, supervise and monitor its employees.” ha[s] played an important role in the undisputed discrimination against members of the Armstrong Group in Armstrong prisons. district” (emphasis omitted) (cited Armstrong v. Brown, 857 F. Supp. 2d 919, 937 (N.D.
Cal. 2012))). Shut down and (3) the state is powerless to correct local non-compliance. 30 30 See, for example, the United States defendant`s response to the United States` application for summary judgment, declaratory judgment and permanent injunction under sections 5 to 6, United States v. Alabama, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (M.D. Ala.
2012) (item 2:12-cv-00179-MHT-WC) (describes Alabama`s decentralized electoral system and the lack of state power over local election officials). Close The three positions do not need to be present to form an abdication argument. 31 31 These arguments may be related to each other, but they are different. For example, a state may argue that it is not responsible for local compliance because it is not aware of the local nonconformance or because it is aware of the local nonconformance, but the local government has not complied with the regulations. See Reynolds v. Giuliani, 506 F.3d 183, 192–93 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that the state has tried to monitor and oversee the administration of public aid programs by the local government, setting the bar very high to ultimately blame the state for local non-compliance). These three positions appear in the cases of abdication described in this section and appear as common themes in conversations with state officials and advocates of federal law.