The federal preemption of state law (and especially liability law) has emerged as an intensely controversial area of the William Rehnquist Court’s decisions on federal-state relations. State governments complain about federal impositions. Business groups fear that an unwarranted judicial respect for “states’ rights” would expose corporations, and the national economy, to protectionist meddling by state governments and entrepreneurial trial lawyers.

What has the Rehnquist Court wrought? Is the Court’s defense of federal supremacy on a collision course with its attempt to reinvigorate “federalism”? Michael S. Greve will present an empirical assessment and analysis of the Court’s preemption decisions. Experts will comment from a practical and theoretical perspective.