{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03373015873015873, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.386075949367089, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Federalism in Rights Cases


 This Article examines whether and how, in a federal state, the federated entities’ constitutions, laws, case law, and practices may impact federal fundamental rights cases. Such bottom-up influence may occur in particular when (i) the federated entities have jurisdiction over the relevant area of law and enjoy broad autonomy; (ii) the question raised is controversial, relates to conflicting values, and is linked to the diversity which the constitution protects; (iii) the applicable federal fundamental right is “unenumerated” or not clearly grounded in the constitution; and (iv) the scope of this right is vague. In this respect, federated entities in a federal state may become “constitutional indicators” or even “trailblazers.” They indeed have the potential to indicate a future federal path when, for constitutional reasons, many of them have made similar decisions or choices, or when one or a few pioneering entities wander through unexplored constitutional fields.