Racialized Dual Sovereignty and the Paradox of Federalism

Abstract This article re-conceptualizes American federalism as a racialized institutional order by advancing the theory of racialized dual sovereignty. Conventional federalism scholarship treats conflicts between state and federal authority as race-neutral disputes over jurisdiction, yet American political development demonstrates that sovereignty conflicts intensify when state actions threaten Black citizenship and political participation. This reframing is necessary because traditional constitutional jurisprudence cannot fully explain the seemingly divergent outcomes in Shelby County v. Holder and Allen v. Milligan , two decisions issued by an ideologically similar Supreme Court. The article introduces the concept of the racially charged state, defined as a subnational unit in which historical legacies of racial domination and institutional design make race the central axis of political conflict, with Alabama serving as a paradigmatic case. It argues that federal intervention operates as threshold-based recalibration: when racially exclusionary state practices threaten democratic legitimacy, federal institutions intervene selectively to stabilize the system while permitting substantial subnational inequality. The findings illuminate federalism’s dual role in enabling democratic backsliding and institutional resilience.