Editing Hugo Black (section)

===Federalism===
Black held an expansive view of legislative power, whether that be state or federal, and would often vote against judicial review of state laws that could be struck down under the Commerce Clause.<ref>''Mr. Justice Black and His Critics''. By Tinsley E. Yarbrough. p. 44. Duke University Press.</ref> Previously, during the 1920s and 1930s, the court had interpreted the commerce clause narrowly, often striking down laws on the grounds that Congress had overstepped its authority.<ref name="Ball (2006)" />{{rp|88–90}} After 1937, however, the Supreme Court overturned several precedents and affirmed a broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Black consistently voted with the majority in these decisions; for example, he joined ''Mulford v. Smith'', {{ussc|307|38|1939}}, ''[[United States v. Darby Lumber Co.]]'', {{ussc|312|100|1941}}, ''[[Wickard v. Filburn]]'', {{ussc|317|111|1942}}, ''[[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States]]'', {{ussc|379|241|1964}}, and ''[[Katzenbach v. McClung]]'', {{ussc|379|294|1964}}.{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}}

In several other federalism cases, however, Black ruled against the federal government. For instance, he partially dissented from ''[[South Carolina v. Katzenbach]]'', {{ussc|383|301|1966}}, in which the court upheld the validity of the [[Voting Rights Act|Voting Rights Act of 1965]]. In an attempt to protect the voting rights of African Americans, the act required any state with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing its voting laws. Black wrote that the law:

<blockquote>...by providing that some of the States cannot pass state laws or adopt state constitutional amendments without first being compelled to beg federal authorities to approve their policies, so distorts our constitutional structure of government as to render any distinction drawn in the Constitution between state and federal power almost meaningless.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=383&invol=301|title=FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.|website=Findlaw|access-date=February 18, 2006|archive-date=June 23, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060623001054/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=383&invol=301|url-status=live}}</ref></blockquote>

Similarly, in ''[[Oregon v. Mitchell]]'' (1970), he delivered the opinion of the court holding that the federal government was not entitled to set the [[voting age]] for state elections.{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}}

In the law of [[United States federal courts|federal jurisdiction]], Black made a large contribution by authoring the majority opinion in ''[[Younger v. Harris]]''. This case, decided during Black's last year on the court, has given rise to what is now known as ''Younger'' [[abstention doctrine|abstention]]. According to this doctrine, an important principle of federalism called "comity"—that is, respect by federal courts for state courts—dictates that federal courts abstain from intervening in ongoing state proceedings, absent the most compelling circumstances. The case is also famous for its discussion of what Black calls "Our Federalism", a discussion in which Black expatiates on:

<blockquote>...proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=401&page=37|title=United States Supreme Court case and opinions.|website=Findlaw|access-date=February 20, 2006|archive-date=March 2, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060302212720/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=401&page=37|url-status=live}}</ref></blockquote>

Black was an early supporter of the "one man, one vote" standard for apportionment set by ''[[Baker v. Carr]]''. He had previously dissented in support of this view in ''Baker''{{'s}} predecessor case, ''[[Colegrove v. Green]]''.{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}}