Final answer:
These lawsuits are examples of competitive federalism, where state and national governments vie for policy control. The U.S. Supreme Court plays a crucial role in resolving such disputes, affecting the balance of power between state and federal governments across policy areas like immigration and LGBTQ rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
When state governments or the national government sue each other over policy differences, these lawsuits are often examples of competitive federalism in action. Competitive federalism is a form of federalism where state and national governments compete for authority and influence over public policies. This competition is evident across a range of policy areas including immigration, health care, and gun control. Particularly in the United States, the federal system allows for states to have autonomy in certain legislative areas while the federal government retains supremacy in others as outlined by the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court often plays a central role in resolving these disputes and their decisions can either preserve the autonomy of one level of government or potentially erode it. For example, the Court has ruled on matters relating to immigration policy—a traditionally federal responsibility—thus affecting state autonomy in this area. Moreover, the Court's decisions can reflect shifts in policy domains such as immigration federalism and the marital rights of LGBTQ individuals, previously under state jurisdiction.
This dynamic nature of federalism reflects the broader historical shifts such as the transition from dual federalism to cooperative federalism, and later to new federalism, adjusting the balance between national power and state power. The concepts of elastic clause, nullification, and mandates have all played roles in these evolutions of federalism. With changing times, competitive federalism has led to a complex interplay of state and federal powers, which is a fundamental aspect of the American political system's checks and balances.