Facts of the Case
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. In both cases District Courts found the background-checks unconstitutional, but ruled that since this requirement was severable from the rest of the Brady Bill a voluntary background-check system could remain. On appeal from the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the interim background-check provisions were constitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the two cases deciding this one along with Mack v. United States.
Questions
Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks?
Conclusions
-
No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. The Court added that the Brady Bill could not require CLEOs to perform the related tasks of disposing of handgun-application forms or notifying certain applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing, since the Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those CLEO's who voluntarily accepted them.
SCOTUS Preview: Brackeen v. Haaland (Part 2)
As explained in my previous post, the Supreme Court must decide in Brackeen whether the...
State Judiciaries and the Anticommandeering Doctrine
In the 1992 case New York v. United States, the Supreme Court applied the anticommandeering...
State Judiciaries and the Anticommandeering Doctrine
In the 1992 case New York v. United States, the Supreme Court applied the anticommandeering...
Constitutionality of Proposed Federal Liability Limitations for COVID-19 Exposure Claims
By Michael A. Carvin & Yaakov M. Roth Over the past weeks, the COVID-19 pandemic...
Courthouse Steps: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association Decided
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Teleforum
On Monday, May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decision came down in Murphy v. National...
Sports Gambling Decision is a Major Victory for Federalism
This post has been contributed from The Volokh Conspiracy with permission by the author. Click...
A New Federalism: Can the Judicial Right and Left Unite as Unlikely Allies?
Recent events are creating strange legal bedfellows. Following President Trump’s election, the administration took swift...
Courthouse Steps: Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group and Regulatory Transparency Project Teleforum
On Monday, December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Christie v. National...
Christie v. NCAA: Anti-Commandeering or Bust
Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Note from the Editor: This article argues that the Supreme Court should find unconstitutional the...
Christie v. NCAA: Anti-Commandeering or Bust
Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Note from the Editor: This article argues that the Supreme Court should find unconstitutional the...
People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Did Gonzalez v. Raich Eviscerate All Constitutional Limits on Federal Power?
Engage Volume 17, Issue 1
Note from the Editor: This article discusses an ongoing case questioning the constitutionality of the...
Does EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposal Violate the States’ Sovereign Rights?
Engage Volume 16, Issue 1
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan under...
Does EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposal Violate the States’ Sovereign Rights?
Engage Volume 16, Issue 1
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan under...
FCC Preemption of State Restrictions on Government-owned Broadband Networks: An Affront to Federalism
Engage Volume 16, Issue 1
Note from the Editor: This article is about the Federal Communications Commission’s Order preempting state...
Cooperation or Coercion on Climate: Is the EPA Trying to Deputize the States? - Podcast
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast
It has been argued that EPA's recently announced carbon emissions rule is just the latest...
Florida Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare: It All Comes Down to Broccoli
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
Note from the Editor: This paper provides an update on the litigation dealing with the...
The States and the NLRB: A Study in Comparative Sovereignty
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
Under a system of government that diffuses power and makes institutional “[a]mbition . . ....
The States and the NLRB: A Study in Comparative Sovereignty
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
Under a system of government that diffuses power and makes institutional “[a]mbition . . ....
The Transportation of Hazardous Materials After September 11: Issues and Developments
William R. Maurer [1]1. The ProblemShortly after the terrorist attacks against the United States on...
The Transportation of Hazardous Materials After September 11: Issues and Developments
William R. Maurer [1]1. The ProblemShortly after the terrorist attacks against the United States on...
Federalism Revived? The Printz and City of Boerne Decisions
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 1998
The following program was sponsored by the Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group at...
Federalism Revived? The Printz and City of Boerne Decisions
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 1998
The following program was sponsored by the Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group at...
Printz v. United States
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 3, Fall 1997
It is something of an annual tradition at the Supreme Court that each Term's biggest...
City of Boerne v. Flores: A Victory for Federalism
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 3, Fall 1997
In deciding whether to invalidate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in City of Boerne...
Printz v. United States
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 3, Fall 1997
It is something of an annual tradition at the Supreme Court that each Term's biggest...
City of Boerne v. Flores: A Victory for Federalism
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 3, Fall 1997
In deciding whether to invalidate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in City of Boerne...
Dragooning State Officials into Federal Service
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 1996
In a century driven by the Progressive-Era view that ever-larger government can solve the manifold...
Dragooning State Officials into Federal Service
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 1996
In a century driven by the Progressive-Era view that ever-larger government can solve the manifold...
Courthouse Steps: Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group and Regulatory Transparency Project Teleforum
TeleforumDoes The EPA Respect Federalism?
Summit Club (Renaissance Room) 15 W 6th StTulsa, 74119