US federalism | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 5 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 55 minutes
exam questions by topic 👇
US federalism A-Level Politics revision examines how political power is shared between the federal government and the individual states. You need to understand the nature of this relationship, how power is distributed and why the balance between the two levels can change. Most importantly, Edexcel requires you to debate whether the USA remains genuinely federal today. This develops your understanding of the constitutional principles and prepares you for wider constitutional debates.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define federalism accurately.
Explain how sovereignty is shared between federal government and the states.
Explain how the Constitution protects the federal system.
Analyse how power is distributed between federal and state government.
Explain why the balance of power between the two levels can change.
Evaluate the extent to which the USA remains federal today.
Revision Notes đź“š
What is federalism?
Federalism is the US system in which sovereignty is shared between a central government, the federal government, and the individual states, with each possessing its own specific rights.
This definition is crucial.
Federalism does not mean simply that the federal government is powerful. It refers to the relationship between two levels of government and the sharing of sovereignty between them.
The two levels are:
the federal government, operating across the USA
the governments of the individual states
The Constitution therefore divides political authority rather than concentrating it entirely at the national level.
This makes federalism one of the main principles introduced in the constitutional framework.
Federalism and sovereignty
In the US system, sovereignty is considered to be shared between federal and state government.
This is important because state power is not simply granted at the discretion of the federal government.
Federalism is entrenched within the US Constitution, meaning the existence and constitutional position of the states cannot simply be removed through ordinary federal legislation. Edexcel assessment material contrasts this with systems where central government retains ultimate legal sovereignty.
The basic structure can therefore be represented as:
US Constitution
↓
shared sovereignty
↓
federal government + state governments
Neither level should be understood as simply a branch of the other.
Why federalism matters
Federalism is one way in which the Constitution disperses political power.
Instead of giving the national government unrestricted authority:
sovereignty is shared→ states retain significant powers→ federal government is constitutionally limited→ power is distributed across the political system.
Federalism therefore contributes to the broader principle of limited government, studied in constitutional limitations on power.
Federalism is constitutionally entrenched
The federal structure forms part of the Constitution itself.
This gives federalism a stronger constitutional position than an arrangement that could simply be changed through an ordinary Act of the national legislature.
The entrenched Constitution therefore provides protection for the relationship between the federal government and states.
This links federalism directly to constitutional entrenchment.
The consequence is significant:
federalism is constitutional→ state authority has a protected basis→ federal institutions cannot simply abolish the federal structure through ordinary legislation→ the states remain constitutionally important political actors.
The distribution of power
The Constitution distributes governmental power between federal and state institutions.
Some powers are explicitly allocated within the constitutional framework. The specification refers to enumerated powers, meaning powers stated explicitly within the Constitution, and gives Article I, Section 8 as an example of powers granted to Congress.
Other areas of government remain important responsibilities of the states.
This produces a political system in which neither level controls every area of government.
Federal government | State governments |
Exercises powers within the federal constitutional framework | Exercise significant powers within individual states |
Congress possesses constitutionally defined powers | States can make their own policy in important areas |
Presidents may pursue policies with nationwide effects | States can develop different policies from one another |
Federal institutions may seek nationally consistent policies | State governments can defend their own authority and challenge federal action |
The precise balance is not permanently fixed in political practice.
This is why Edexcel asks not only what federalism is, but also whether the USA remains federal today.
State autonomy
An important feature of a genuinely federal system is state autonomy, meaning states have meaningful scope to make political decisions of their own.
Edexcel's 2025 mark scheme identifies increasing divergence in state policy as evidence that federalism continues to operate.
For example, following the overturning of Roe v Wade, states adopted substantially different approaches to abortion law. The mark scheme also identifies variation between states in areas of LGBT+ rights.
The significance is not simply that different laws exist.
The stronger analytical point is:
states can pursue different policies→ national uniformity does not automatically exist→ state government remains politically significant→ this supports the argument that the USA continues to operate as a federal system.
Federal power
Federalism does not mean that states are independent countries.
The USA also has powerful national institutions:
Congress
the presidency
the federal judiciary
These institutions can make decisions with nationwide effects.
Federalism therefore involves a continuous relationship between state autonomy and national authority.
The balance may shift according to:
legislation passed by Congress
presidential action
decisions of the Supreme Court
national crises
the practical operation of federal programmes
This is why federalism should be understood as a dynamic relationship, not simply a static diagram of two levels of government.
Congress and federalism
Congress can have an important effect on the federal-state balance.
The 2025 mark scheme identifies congressional legislation as one possible reason for believing federal power has grown. Congress may pass or attempt to pass legislation that strengthens national government or creates greater policy consistency across the states.
For example, national legislation may be designed to address issues that politicians believe require a country-wide response.
This can produce the following argument:
Congress passes national legislation→ federal rules apply more widely→ scope for separate state approaches may be reduced→ federal government becomes more significant→ federalism may appear to be weakening.
However, the reverse argument is also important.
Political divisions within Congress can make it difficult to establish a single national policy. Where federal legislation cannot be agreed, states may retain or exercise considerable policy freedom.
Therefore:
congressional division→ national agreement becomes difficult→ states continue developing their own policies→ state autonomy remains significant→ federalism continues to operate.
This links directly to later work on congressional powers and law-making.
The presidency and federalism
Presidential power can also affect the federal-state relationship.
Edexcel mark schemes identify the increasing willingness of presidents to pursue national policy initiatives as an argument that federal power has expanded.
Presidents may seek action on issues that affect individual states, including through:
national policy programmes
executive action
federal spending
responses to national crises
This means the presidency can become an important source of pressure towards greater national coordination.
You will examine the constitutional and political basis of presidential authority in presidential powers.
Presidential action and state autonomy
Presidential action can create tension with states where a national policy affects areas in which states wish to pursue their own approach.
This creates an argument that federalism may be declining:
presidential power grows→ national policy reaches further into the states→ state freedom may be restricted→ the balance shifts towards federal government.
However, presidential action does not automatically eliminate federalism.
States can challenge federal government action, including through the courts.
Edexcel's 2025 mark scheme notes that Supreme Court rulings can prevent presidential attempts to impose federal rules where those actions exceed constitutional authority.
Therefore:
presidential action→ may expand federal reach→ but can face constitutional challenge→ federal government remains constrained→ state authority may still be protected.
National crises and federal government
The balance of federalism may change during periods of national crisis.
The 2025 Edexcel mark scheme identifies the growth of federal government during crises as an argument supporting the view that federalism has declined, including the need for coordinated national responses.
Why might this happen?
A crisis affecting many or all states may create pressure for:
national coordination
federal spending
presidential leadership
consistent national action
This can temporarily increase the importance of federal institutions.
The analytical chain is:
national crisis→ demand for coordinated action→ federal government assumes a greater role→ states may have less independent control→ the federal-state balance shifts towards Washington.
However, this does not necessarily prove a permanent decline in federalism.
An increase in federal activity during an emergency may be a temporary response rather than a permanent removal of state power.
That distinction is valuable in evaluation.
Federal spending and the states
Money is another important part of the federal-state relationship.
Edexcel's 2025 examiner report identifies finances as one of the strongest themes candidates used when evaluating modern federalism. Strong responses considered how federal money and programmes can influence state behaviour.
Federal spending can increase national influence because programmes funded by the federal government may affect what happens within individual states.
This can support the decline argument:
federal funding→ federal government gains influence over policy implementation→ states may have less complete freedom→ national government becomes increasingly important.
However, Edexcel's 2025 mark scheme also makes the opposite point: federal programmes may depend upon states for effective implementation.
That gives a more nuanced conclusion:
federal money may strengthen national influence, but the need for state implementation can also demonstrate continuing interdependence between the two levels.
The Supreme Court and federalism
The Supreme Court plays a particularly important role when disputes arise over the constitutional boundary between federal and state authority.
The federal nature of the Constitution can produce conflict over which level of government has authority in a particular area. Edexcel's 2025 comparative mark scheme explicitly notes that such disputes may need to be settled by Supreme Court rulings.
The Court can therefore influence the balance of federalism by determining whether federal or state action is constitutional.
This connects directly to judicial review.
The Supreme Court can restrain federal power
A Court ruling that prevents the federal government exceeding its constitutional powers can reinforce state autonomy.
The 2025 mark scheme uses the blocking of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan as an example supporting the argument that federalism remains effective.
The reasoning is:
federal government attempts national action→ constitutional challenge reaches the judiciary→ federal action is restricted→ national government cannot simply override constitutional limits→ federalism remains meaningful.
Supreme Court decisions can also create national uniformity
The Court can also make decisions that reduce differences between states by establishing a constitutional rule applying nationally.
The 2025 examiner report contrasts Supreme Court decisions that appear to reinforce state power with decisions that have strengthened nationally applicable rights.
This means the Supreme Court should not automatically be labelled either "pro-state" or "pro-federal".
Its effect depends on the specific constitutional dispute.
The better exam argument is:
The judiciary remains one of the institutions through which the changing boundary between federal and state government is determined.
Federalism and different state policies
One of the clearest arguments that the USA remains federal is the continuing ability of states to pursue different policies.
Edexcel's 2025 assessment material identifies state variation in areas such as:
abortion
LGBT+ rights
guns
climate policy
You do not need to treat these as isolated facts.
Their analytical significance is what matters:
different states make different political choices→ citizens experience different policies depending on their state→ state government remains independently significant→ nationwide policy is not determined entirely by federal government→ federalism continues.
Federalism means both independence and interdependence
An easy mistake is to imagine federalism as a system in which federal and state governments operate entirely separately.
In reality, the two levels frequently interact.
Federal programmes may depend upon implementation by states, while state governments operate within the wider national constitutional system.
Federalism can therefore involve:
autonomy, because states have their own political authority
interdependence, because the two levels frequently interact
conflict, where each claims authority
cooperation, where both participate in delivering policy
This makes the question "Does the USA remain federal?" more complicated than simply asking whether federal government has become more powerful.
Arguments that federalism is declining
The Edexcel specification requires students to debate the extent to which the USA remains federal today.
There are several source-supported arguments that federal power has grown.
1. Presidential policy has increasingly national effects
Presidents may pursue policy initiatives affecting issues that would otherwise involve significant state action.
This can strengthen national government at the expense of state autonomy.
2. Congress can strengthen national government
Federal legislation can establish country-wide approaches to political issues.
Where national rules expand, the independent policy space available to states may be reduced.
3. Federal government becomes more important during crises
National crises often create pressure for central coordination, leadership and spending.
This can temporarily shift power towards the federal government.
4. Federal spending can influence states
Federal money and programmes can give national government greater influence over policy taking place within states.
5. Political activity may focus heavily on federal institutions
The 2025 mark scheme notes that interest groups often focus considerable effort at federal level, reflecting the importance attached to decisions made by national institutions.
Together these arguments suggest that the formal existence of state government does not necessarily mean that the balance of political power has remained unchanged.
Arguments that the USA remains strongly federal
There are equally significant arguments against decline.
1. Federalism remains constitutionally entrenched
Federalism is part of the constitutional structure.
State authority therefore possesses a constitutional basis rather than existing purely at the discretion of federal government.
2. States continue to make important policy
State governments continue to legislate and adopt different approaches to major political issues.
This is one of the clearest indicators of continuing state autonomy.
3. States can challenge federal government
State governments are capable of resisting or challenging presidential and federal action.
This demonstrates that they remain important constitutional actors rather than subordinate administrative bodies.
4. The Supreme Court can protect the constitutional balance
Judicial rulings can restrict federal action that exceeds constitutional limits.
This prevents federal institutions from possessing unlimited authority.
5. Federal programmes often depend on states
National programmes still rely on cooperation and implementation at state level.
This suggests that increased federal activity does not necessarily remove state power.
Does growing federal power mean federalism has disappeared?
No.
This is the distinction at the heart of the topic.
Federalism does not require federal and state government to possess exactly equal political influence at every moment.
A federal system can experience changes in the balance of power while remaining federal.
Therefore:
growth of federal government ≠automatic end of federalism
Instead, ask:
Are states still constitutionally protected?
Can states still make significant independent policy?
Can states resist or challenge federal action?
Do important policy differences remain between states?
Does federal government still depend on cooperation with states?
If the answer to these questions remains substantially yes, there is a strong case that the USA remains federal even if national government has grown.
How should the extent of federalism be judged?
A strong assessment needs criteria.
You could judge whether the USA remains federal through four tests.
Criterion | Evidence federalism remains | Evidence of decline |
Constitutional position | Federalism remains entrenched and states retain constitutional significance | Federal institutions can interpret and use their powers expansively |
Policy autonomy | States continue to adopt differing policies | National legislation and presidential policies can produce greater uniformity |
Ability to resist | States can challenge federal action and use the courts | Challenging federal action may be difficult and national policies can have substantial reach |
Practical influence | Federal programmes may require state implementation | Federal finance and national programmes may steer state behaviour |
This produces a more sophisticated judgement than simply listing examples.
A balanced judgement on modern US federalism
The strongest conclusion is likely to distinguish between the constitutional existence of federalism and the changing balance of power within it.
The USA clearly continues to possess:
constitutionally significant state governments
substantial state policy autonomy
variation between states
mechanisms through which states can challenge federal authority
However, the federal government can also exercise extensive political and financial influence, particularly through Congress, presidential action and responses to national problems.
Therefore, it is possible to argue:
US federalism has changed, and national government can be extremely powerful, but this is not the same as demonstrating that federalism has disappeared.
This debate leads directly into evaluating the modern Constitution.
Exam application
For a question asking whether federalism is declining, avoid writing:
Federalism is declining because the president is powerful.
This does not explain the relationship.
Instead write:
Presidential policy increasingly has national effects→ areas of policy within individual states become influenced by federal action→ state autonomy may therefore be reduced→ this shifts the balance towards national government→ however, states retain the ability to challenge federal action and continue pursuing distinctive policies→ therefore this may demonstrate an adjustment in the federal balance rather than the disappearance of federalism.
That final comparison between competing interpretations is where effective AO3 evaluation begins.
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Be certain that you understand the word federalism. The 2025 examiner report found that some candidates confused federalism with "the federal government" and therefore discussed whether Congress or the presidency was declining. Federalism is the relationship and distribution of sovereignty between federal and state government.
Examiner hint:Â Organise a 30-mark federalism answer thematically. The strongest 2025 responses considered themes such as the judiciary, executive power, finance and state-level policy divergence rather than writing one half saying "federalism is declining" and a second half saying "it is not".
Examiner hint:Â Do not rely on a string of examples. The 2025 report criticised a "scatter-gun" approach in which candidates listed case after case without developing the analysis and evaluation. Use each example to prove a wider argument about the federal-state balance.
Examiner hint:Â A mini-judgement needs explanation. Simply ending a paragraph with "therefore federalism is declining" does not provide strong AO3. Explain why the evidence is convincing, what challenges it, and which interpretation is stronger.
Examiner hint: Use recent evidence where appropriate. The 2025 report noted that answers built solely around historical examples were limited. Older evidence can provide contrast, but evaluation of whether the USA remains federal today should focus on the contemporary balance of power.
Examiner hint:Â Keep your evidence related. The report found that some weaker answers attempted to evaluate one argument using a completely unrelated counterexample. Compare evidence addressing the same theme, for example expanding presidential action against the capacity of states and courts to resist that action.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Confusing federalism with the federal government
Why this is incorrect: Federalism describes the sharing of sovereignty between federal and state government. It is not another name for Washington or the national government.
This was identified as a significant misunderstanding in the 2025 examiner report.
How to improve: Begin every federalism essay by remembering:
Federalism = relationship between two levels of government.
Then make every paragraph relate to whether that relationship is becoming more or less balanced.
Mistake: Assuming increased federal power proves federalism has ended
Why this is incorrect: Federalism can continue even if the balance moves towards national government.
States may still retain constitutional protection, policy autonomy and the ability to challenge federal action.
How to improve:
Distinguish between:
a decline in state influence
the complete disappearance of federalism
They are not the same claim.
Mistake: Listing state and federal powers without analysing the relationship
Why this is incorrect: The specification requires knowledge of the relationship with the states and debate over whether the USA remains federal, not simply two separate lists of powers.
How to improve: After every example, explain whether it shifts the balance towards federal government, protects state autonomy or demonstrates cooperation between the two.
Mistake: Assuming states cannot legislate where federal government is active
Why this is incorrect: The 2024 examiner report identified sweeping claims that states are prohibited from having their own laws in major policy areas as a misconception. State and federal policy can interact, and states retain substantial capacity to legislate.
How to improve: Avoid absolute phrases such as "states have no power". Explain precisely how the federal and state levels interact.
Mistake: Writing a purely historical account
Why this is incorrect: The exam requires evaluation of whether the USA remains federal today. A narrative about the historical development of federalism does not directly answer that question.
How to improve: Use modern themes and examples to assess the present balance. Historical evidence should only be used where it helps create a relevant comparison.
Mistake: Using an example without explaining its significance
Why this is incorrect: An example of different state abortion laws does not evaluate federalism by itself.
How to improve: Develop the chain:
different state laws→ states possess meaningful policy autonomy→ nationwide uniformity is absent→ state governments remain independently important→ this weakens the argument that federalism is disappearing.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define federalism. (2 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer:
Federalism is the US system in which sovereignty is shared between the federal government and the individual states, with each possessing specific rights.
Award up to 2 marks for identifying both the sharing of sovereignty and the federal-state relationship.
Question 2
Explain two characteristics of the US federal system. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Candidates may explain that:
sovereignty is shared between federal and state government
state government has a constitutionally significant position
federalism is entrenched within the constitutional system
power is distributed rather than concentrated entirely in national government
states retain scope to develop their own policies
Award credit for two accurately explained characteristics.
Question 3
Explain how federalism contributes to limited government in the USA. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Candidates may explain that:
sovereignty is shared rather than concentrated solely in federal institutions
states retain meaningful governmental powers
national government therefore does not possess unrestricted authority over every area
states may challenge federal action
constitutional disputes can be determined by the judiciary
this provides limits on the ability of federal institutions to dominate state government
Higher-mark answers should create a clear causal chain between federalism and limited government.
Question 4
State A and State B adopt different policies on the same controversial social issue following the removal of a previous nationally applicable legal position.
Analyse what this tells us about the operation of federalism. (8 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Candidates may analyse that:
the two states are able to make different political choices
this demonstrates state policy autonomy
federalism allows significant variation across the country
national political uniformity therefore does not automatically follow
the example supports the view that state governments remain meaningful political institutions
However:
the existence of state variation alone does not demonstrate that states are dominant
federal institutions continue to exercise extensive nationwide authority in other areas
the example therefore supports continuing federalism more strongly than it proves the weakness of federal government
Question 5
Analyse two ways in which presidential power may alter the balance of US federalism. (8 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Candidates may analyse:
National policy initiatives
presidents may promote policies operating across the USA
these may affect areas in which states would otherwise exercise considerable discretion
this can increase federal influence and reduce state autonomy
Executive action
presidents can pursue action with implications for individual states
this may allow federal government to act without relying entirely on separate state decisions
this can strengthen national government
Counter-analysis may explain that:
states can challenge federal action
courts can restrict presidential measures that exceed constitutional authority
presidential growth therefore does not automatically remove federalism
Question 6
Analyse the argument that the growth of federal government does not necessarily mean that US federalism is disappearing. (12 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Strong responses may develop several themes.
Constitutional position of the states
federalism remains constitutionally entrenched
states therefore retain a protected position within the political system
increased national activity does not by itself abolish this structure
State policy autonomy
states continue to pursue different policies in important areas
policy divergence demonstrates that state governments remain independently significant
Challenges to federal action
states can contest national government policies
judicial review can restrict federal actions that exceed constitutional limits
this demonstrates continuing restraints on federal power
Interdependence
federal programmes may increase national influence
however, those programmes may still depend upon implementation and cooperation by states
this suggests that increased federal activity may transform rather than eliminate federalism
Evaluation
Higher-level answers should distinguish a shift in the balance of federalism from the end of federalism itself.
Question 7
A federal government launches a major national programme. Funding comes from Washington, but state governments are required to implement substantial parts of the programme.
Assess what this situation suggests about the balance of US federalism. (12 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Candidates may argue that it suggests federalism is weakening because:
federal government sets the national policy direction
federal spending increases national influence
states may be encouraged or pressured to follow federal priorities
the balance therefore moves towards national government
However, candidates may argue that it demonstrates continuing federalism because:
the federal government cannot operate entirely independently of the states
state institutions remain necessary for implementation
policymaking therefore involves interaction between two constitutionally significant levels
interdependence is compatible with a functioning federal system
A strong judgement should recognise that greater federal influence and continued state significance can exist at the same time.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that the USA is becoming less federal. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A balanced response must assess evidence supporting and challenging the view.
Argument 1: Presidential power
Support for the view
Presidents increasingly pursue nationally significant policy programmes and executive action.
This can increase federal influence over political issues affecting the states and shift the balance towards national government.
Challenge
States can resist federal policy and seek judicial review of national actions.
Where presidential action is restricted on constitutional grounds, the capacity of the states and judiciary to resist demonstrates continuing federalism.
Interim judgement
Presidential expansion may change the federal balance, but it does not automatically establish permanent federal dominance.
Argument 2: Congress and national legislation
Support for the view
Congress can pass legislation producing more consistent national policy, strengthening the reach of federal government.
National legislation may therefore reduce the scope for state-by-state approaches.
Challenge
Partisan and institutional divisions within Congress can make national agreement difficult.
Where Congress fails to establish nationwide rules, states retain greater ability to legislate differently.
Interim judgement
Congress is capable of increasing federal power, but its ability to do so varies substantially according to political circumstances.
Argument 3: Federal finance and national programmes
Support for the view
Federal spending gives Washington substantial influence over policies that operate within the states.
This may allow national government to steer state behaviour without formally abolishing state powers.
Challenge
Many federal programmes still rely on state-level implementation.
The need for cooperation demonstrates continuing interdependence rather than complete federal control.
Interim judgement
Financial power may be one of the strongest sources of increased federal influence, although state participation remains important.
Argument 4: State policy divergence
Challenge to the view
States continue to adopt significantly different approaches in areas such as abortion, LGBT+ rights, gun policy and climate policy.
This demonstrates meaningful state policy autonomy and provides strong evidence that federalism continues.
Counterargument
Variation in some policy areas does not mean federal government is weak overall.
Federal institutions remain highly influential across national politics.
Interim judgement
State divergence is particularly persuasive evidence against the claim that federalism is disappearing because it demonstrates practical, rather than merely constitutional, state autonomy.
Argument 5: The judiciary
Challenge to the view
The Supreme Court can restrain federal actions that exceed constitutional limits.
The continued ability of judicial review to regulate the federal-state boundary demonstrates that federal government is not legally unlimited.
Counterargument
Supreme Court decisions can also impose constitutional standards with nationwide effects, reducing state variation in particular areas.
Interim judgement
The Court does not consistently strengthen one level over the other. Its importance lies in demonstrating that the balance itself remains a constitutional issue.
Overall judgement
A strong conclusion should distinguish federalism being in decline from federal government becoming more powerful.
The federal government has substantial capacity to influence the states through presidential action, congressional legislation, national crises and financial resources. This can shift the balance of power towards Washington.
However, state governments remain constitutionally significant, pursue sharply different policies, participate in implementing federal programmes and can challenge national action through the judicial system.
The most convincing judgement is therefore that the balance within American federalism changes over time, but continuing state autonomy and constitutional protection make it difficult to argue that the USA has ceased to be genuinely federal.
Comments