Disability and the Ongoing Federalism Revolution w/ Karen Tani and Katie Eyer (Unlocked)

·1 hr 26 min·5 clips

How did Supreme Court disability cases secretly build the legal arguments conservatives use to attack abortion, trans care, and worker protections?

The episode features an interview with law professors Karen Tani and Katie Eyer about their co-authored article 'Disability and the Ongoing Federalism Revolution' published in the Yale Law Journal. Hosts Beatrice Adler-Bolton and Phil Rocco guide the discussion, which begins by defining 'new federalism' as a conservative legal philosophy focused on restoring power to states by limiting federal authority. The guests explain that their research uncovers a previously overlooked pattern: disability-related Supreme Court cases from the 1970s onward were instrumental in constructing key doctrines of this federalism revolution. They detail how the 11th Amendment, which originally only barred suits against states by citizens of other states, was expansively reinterpreted to prevent a state's own citizens from suing it in federal court—a move not supported by the text. The conversation explores the historical context of the 1970s, including backlash to the Warren Court, fiscal pressures on states, and the rise of the conservative legal movement. Specific cases analyzed include Edelman v. Jordan, which limited retroactive benefits for disability claimants, and the Pennhurst deinstitutionalization cases, which introduced 'clear statement rules' that treat federal spending as a contract with states. The guests argue that disability cases provided a 'vehicle' for these changes because liberal justices often viewed disability rights as less consequential, a phenomenon they term disability exceptionalism. They trace how these earlier decisions enabled the more famous new federalism cases of the 1990s like Alden v. Maine. The discussion also covers contemporary implications, noting how doctrines developed in disability cases are now being used to challenge spending-clause civil rights statutes like Title VI and Title IX, and even influence recent cases like the EMTALA dispute. Throughout, the hosts and guests emphasize how these technical legal shifts have material consequences, limiting access to remedies for rights violations and centralizing power in the judiciary.

As heard by us

Disability cases become a route into the conservative legal theory reshaping who can sue states and where rights claims can be heard.

Disability civil rights cases become a revealing way into the broader story of how the contemporary conservative legal project gained traction.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Want a sharp legal history of how disability-rights cases helped set the terms for today's conservative fights over federal power?

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Death Panel