The Supreme Court's per curiam decision in Bush v. Gore, sparked a considerable amount of criticism and discussion. During this debate, many scholars have argued that the Court's decision was fundamentally incompatible with its previous federalism decisions. This article contends that this criticism is misplaced. It argues that while the per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore decision embraced a novel and rather expansive understanding of equal protection that seems largely out of character for the Rehnquist Court, the Court's decision to intervene and resolve the election dispute was not inconsistent with its general approach to constitutional federalism.
This article argues that the contention that the Bush v. Gore decision is inconsistent with the core aspects of the Rehnquist Court's federalism jurisprudence is overdrawn in two important respects. First, it argues that to describe the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions solely in terms of their solicitude for states political autonomy or "respecting states' rights" is too simplistic. Secondly, it argues that the Bush v. Gore decision is fully consistent with previous federal jurisprudence decisions that the Court should resolve any questions of constitutional meaning.
62 Ohio St. L.J. 1781