The Roman god Janus had two faces, looking in opposite directions.
This split appearance is an apt metaphor for the Rehnquist Court's
decisions involving federal-state relations. One face, which has
received much attention over the past decade and a half, is
characterized by the Court's post-1990 decisions concerning state
sovereignty, sovereign immunity, and the reach of Congress's powers
under the Interstate Commerce Clause and the 14th
Amendment. All have had a devolutionary thrust, bolstering state
authority or insulating state institutions against federal law and
regulations. The second, less recognized face is distinguished by
the Court's emerging doctrines concerning federal preemption of
state and local authority. In these cases, the Supreme Court—often
led by members of the new federalist majority—has tilted
surprisingly in favor of federal authority. This article examines
both faces of contemporary judicial policy making on matters of
federalism, with a particular focus on the implications for federal
preemption.