Contrary to what the title suggests, states’ rights very much have a genuine place in American society; Massachusetts, for example, has different industry, international relationships, and demographics than, say, Texas, Idaho, or even California. As such, simple things like tax policy, road laws, and public programs are perfect candidates for state-by-state legislation.

The “trap of states’ rights” comes into play when dealing with civil or social rights. Throughout American history, opponents of civil liberties have leveraged states’ rights to try to impede social progress:

  1. Prior to the Civil War, the South pushed the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, which mandated that free states must respect the slavery laws of slaver states and return runaway slaves. States such as Texas positioned their unpopular social structures as matters of “states’ rights” to delay the inevitable collapse of slavery.
  2. After the Civil War, the South advocated for Jim Crow laws as a way to circumvent federal protections of civil liberties to racist ends, which would continue (officially) until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. States such as Texas delayed the collapse of their racist social hierarchy by portraying the issue as a matter of “states’ rights”.
  3. After Jim Crow, southern states continued their push for segregation. States such as Texas rephrased an attack on equality under the law as a function of “states’ rights”.
  4. After desegregation, states sought to ban same-sex marriage, hoping to outrun the federal position on marriage until Oberfell in 2015 by spinning it as a conversation about “states’ rights”.

In recent years, pro-life advocates have pushed for abortion to be a state-by-state issue after the SCOTUS Dobbs ruling which overturned Roe v. Wade. And, like clockwork, states like Texas are tracking people across state lines—even where abortion is legal—to enforce state-level laws.

Overturning a federal ruling giving every of 340 million Americans a choice and putting it in the hands of 50 state governments is a fallacy; by expressing abortion as a state-level issue, Americans experienced a 99.9999853% reduction in the number of decision-makers regarding their bodily autonomy, placing the power solely in the hands of 50 state governments.

Liberties should never be diced into dozens of pieces and handed to governments to distribute. History has proven time and time again that this is a tool of oppression and consolidation of our collective rights. It is nonsensical in philosophy and degrades our freedoms for cheap, symbolic, pyrrhic victories.