Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Printz v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

federalismanti-commandeeringTenth AmendmentBrady Actfederalismstate sovereigntydual sovereigntyanti-commandeering

Facts

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act amended the federal Gun Control Act and, during an interim period before a national instant background-check system became operative, required firearms dealers to send a Brady Form to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the purchaser's residence and generally wait five business days before completing the sale. In jurisdictions not covered by specified alternatives, the CLEO had to make a reasonable effort within five business days to determine whether the proposed handgun transfer would violate the law by researching available state and local record systems and a national system designated by the Attorney General. If a CLEO notified a dealer that a purchaser was ineligible, the CLEO had to provide written reasons upon request, and if no basis for objection was found, the CLEO had to destroy records relating to the transfer. Printz and Mack, local CLEOs in Montana and Arizona, objected to being compelled to carry out these federal duties.

Issue

May Congress require state and local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks and related tasks in administering the Brady Act's interim federal handgun-regulation scheme? More broadly, may the Federal Government conscript state executive officers directly to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program?

Rule

Congress may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, and it may not circumvent that prohibition by conscripting state officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution's system of dual sovereignty.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Clean Rivers Verification Act. In counties that do not already run their own approved water-testing program, each county environmental director must inspect local factories for compliance with federal discharge limits and report the results to a federal bureau. Dana Ortiz, a county environmental director in Toledo, Ohio, challenges the duty.

Is the federal inspection requirement constitutional as applied to Dana?

Explanation. The majority held categorically that Congress may not circumvent the prohibition on compelling States to administer federal programs by conscripting state officers directly, including officers of political subdivisions. It also rejected the arguments that direct federal regulation of private parties, implementation discretion, or the fact that commands run to individual officials in their official capacities saves the law.