Thanks Jonathan. As you know, I am not a fan of the Supreme Court’s federalism “revolution”–as I explain at length in my chapter of A Year at the Supreme Court. One of the problems with the Court’s federalism jurisprudence is that it has tended to view federalism in terms of the “dignity,” “interests,” and “status” of state governments. It is less interested in constraining governments and holding them accountable. The Court seeks a federalism for states rather than one for citizens, as AEI federalism scholar Mike Greve puts it. This has practical implications–a relatively minor one being the somewhat confused way the Court is treating the medical-marijuana question.