Aziz Z. Huq
85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 226
This Response analyzes the dynamics of federal-state bargaining in the preemption domain in the context of both Congress and federal agencies. It develops both the argument for intergovernmental bargaining, and considers how the circumstances of negotiation and other factors might impede salutary results. Turning to Professor Robert Mikos’s cogently argued suggestion that states use “poison pill” measures to achieve socially desirable equilibrium outcomes, it raises a series of objections. Intergovernmental bargaining may be inevitable, and even better than any plausibly available alternative mechanism for calibrating preemption effects. But it still may well be highly flawed.
Read the Full Response Here.
