Printz v. United States
Encyclopedia
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898
(1997), was a United States Supreme Court
ruling that established the unconstitutionality of certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
.
established a detailed Federal scheme governing the distribution of firearms. The GCA prohibited firearms ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety, such as convicted felons, fugitives from justice, unlawful aliens, and many others.
. The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national instant background check
system by November 30, 1998 to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons."
, the CLEOs for Ravalli County, Montana
, and Graham County, Arizona
, represented by Stephen P. Halbrook and David Hardy
respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law.
reversed, finding none of the Brady Act's interim provisions to be unconstitutional.
is built upon. His opinion states that the Framers designed the Constitution to allow Federal regulation of international and interstate matters, not internal matters reserved to the State Legislatures. The majority arrives at the conclusion that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
The Court also offered an alternative basis for striking down the provision: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the president of his power to execute the laws; that is, it contradicted the "unitary executive theory
". The Court explained
Finally, the majority cited previous rulings by the Supreme Court in similar situations. They relied on New York v. United States
, wherein the Court ruled a Federal bill compelling States to enact legislation to provide for radioactive waste disposal was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment
; thus, a precedent was set prohibiting the Federal government from compelling a state to enforce a Federal regulatory program.
of the Constitution, giving the Federal government the right to regulate handgun sales, can be coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, giving Congress the power to pass whatever laws are necessary and proper to carry out its previously enumerated power. Federal direction of state officials in this manner is analogous to ordering the mass inoculation of children to forestall an epidemic, or directing state officials to respond to a terrorist threat. He is very concerned with the ability of the federal government to respond to a national emergency and does not believe that "there is anything in the 10th amendment 'in historical understanding and practice, in the structure of the Constitution, or in the jurisprudence of this Court,' that forbids the enlistment of state officers to make that response effective." Moreover, the text of the Constitution does not support the Majority's apparent proposition that "a local police officer can ignore a command contained in a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to an express delegation of power enumerated in Article I."
and limits on Federal power.
The political poles have reversed from Printz, especially after the attack on the World Trade Center; where Printz protected conservative local authorities from liberal federal power, it also now protects liberal local authorities from conservative federal power. Professor Ann Althouse
has suggested, retained in its strong form, the anti-commandeering doctrine announced in Printz "can work as a safeguard for the rights of the people";"the federal government might go too far in prosecuting the war on terrorism," Printz provides a circuit-breaker that might allow local and state officials to refuse to enforce regulations curbing individual rights. Moreover, "[b]y denying the means of commandeering to the federal government, the courts have created an incentive [for Congress] to adopt policies that inspire [rather than demand] compliance, thus preserving a beneficial structural safeguard for individual rights," and "state and local government autonomy can exert pressure on the federal government to moderate its efforts and take care not to offend constitutional rights."
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1997), was a United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
ruling that established the unconstitutionality of certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is an Act of the United States Congress that, for the first time, instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States....
.
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968Gun Control Act of 1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 , by president Lyndon Johnson, is a federal law in the United States that broadly regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners...
established a detailed Federal scheme governing the distribution of firearms. The GCA prohibited firearms ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety, such as convicted felons, fugitives from justice, unlawful aliens, and many others.
The Brady Act
In 1993, Congress amended the GCA by enacting the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention ActBrady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is an Act of the United States Congress that, for the first time, instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States....
. The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national instant background check
Background check
A background check or background investigation is the process of looking up and compiling criminal records, commercial records and financial records of an individual....
system by November 30, 1998 to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons."
Interim provisions
The Act also immediately put in place certain interim provisions until that system became operative. Under the interim provisions, a firearms dealer who proposes to transfer a handgun must receive from the transferee a statement (the Brady Form), containing the name, address and date of the proposed transferee along with a sworn statement that the transferee is not among any of the classes of prohibited purchasers, verify the identity of the transferee by examining an identification document, and provide the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of the transferee's residence with notice of the contents (and a copy) of the Brady Form. When a CLEO receives the required notice of a proposed transfer, they must "makonable effort to ascertain within 5 business days whether receipt or possession would be in violation of the law, including research in whatever State and local recordkeeping systems are available and in a national system designated by the Attorney General.The plaintiffs
Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard MackRichard Mack
Richard Ivan Mack, popularly known as Sheriff Mack, is a former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona and Libertarian candidate for United States Senate election in Arizona, 2006. He is also a member of the Oath Keepers....
, the CLEOs for Ravalli County, Montana
Ravalli County, Montana
-National protected areas:*Bitterroot National Forest *Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge*Lolo National Forest -Demographics:As of the census of 2000 , there were 36,070 people, 14,289 households, and 10,188 families residing in the county. The population density was 15 people per square mile...
, and Graham County, Arizona
Graham County, Arizona
-2010:Whereas according to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau:*72.1% White*1.8% Black*14.4% Native American*0.5% Asian*0.1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander*2.8% Two or more races*8.3% Other races*30.4% Hispanic or Latino -2000:...
, represented by Stephen P. Halbrook and David Hardy
David T. Hardy
David T. Hardy , is a senior attorney with the National Rifle Association and has practiced law since 1975. A graduate of the University of Arizona Law School, he previously served as an attorney with the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C., for ten years and now lives in Tucson,...
respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law.
Lower court decisions
In each case, the District Court held that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks was unconstitutional, but concluded that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
reversed, finding none of the Brady Act's interim provisions to be unconstitutional.
Majority decision
The majority of five justices ruled that the interim provisions of the Brady Bill are unconstitutional. In his opinion, Justice Scalia states that, although there is no constitutional text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found “in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court.”Historical understanding and practice
Scalia concedes that legislation compelling judges to carry out Federal legislation has been passed. But he considers that the nature of the courts, which occupy a vertical hierarchy that requires consideration of prior decisions by Federal or state courts, exempts this from applying in this case. Furthermore, contrasting the frequency of legislation applying to judicial courts to the absence of legislation applying to state executives to show this power was not granted.The structure of the Constitution
Scalia refers to the “dual sovereignty” established by the U.S. Constitution that federalismFederalism
Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and...
is built upon. His opinion states that the Framers designed the Constitution to allow Federal regulation of international and interstate matters, not internal matters reserved to the State Legislatures. The majority arrives at the conclusion that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
The Court also offered an alternative basis for striking down the provision: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the president of his power to execute the laws; that is, it contradicted the "unitary executive theory
Unitary executive theory
The unitary executive theory is a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President controls the entire executive branch. The doctrine is based upon Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the United States in the President.Although that...
". The Court explained
- We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws.
Finally, the majority cited previous rulings by the Supreme Court in similar situations. They relied on New York v. United States
New York v. United States
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the "Take Title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce...
, wherein the Court ruled a Federal bill compelling States to enact legislation to provide for radioactive waste disposal was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791...
; thus, a precedent was set prohibiting the Federal government from compelling a state to enforce a Federal regulatory program.
The dissent
In his dissent, Justice Stevens suggests the Commerce clauseCommerce Clause
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
of the Constitution, giving the Federal government the right to regulate handgun sales, can be coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, giving Congress the power to pass whatever laws are necessary and proper to carry out its previously enumerated power. Federal direction of state officials in this manner is analogous to ordering the mass inoculation of children to forestall an epidemic, or directing state officials to respond to a terrorist threat. He is very concerned with the ability of the federal government to respond to a national emergency and does not believe that "there is anything in the 10th amendment 'in historical understanding and practice, in the structure of the Constitution, or in the jurisprudence of this Court,' that forbids the enlistment of state officers to make that response effective." Moreover, the text of the Constitution does not support the Majority's apparent proposition that "a local police officer can ignore a command contained in a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to an express delegation of power enumerated in Article I."
Effects of the decision
The immediate effects of the ruling on the Brady Bill were negligible. The vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks. The issue ended with the completion of the federal background check database. However, Printz v. United States was an important ruling in support of States' RightsStates' rights
States' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government. It is often considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation...
and limits on Federal power.
The political poles have reversed from Printz, especially after the attack on the World Trade Center; where Printz protected conservative local authorities from liberal federal power, it also now protects liberal local authorities from conservative federal power. Professor Ann Althouse
Ann Althouse
Ann Althouse is an American law professor and blogger. Raised in Newark and Wilmington, Delaware , Althouse has a degree in fine art from the University of Michigan, B.F.A. 1973, and graduated first in her class from New York University School of Law, J.D. 1981. She clerked for Judge Leonard B...
has suggested, retained in its strong form, the anti-commandeering doctrine announced in Printz "can work as a safeguard for the rights of the people";"the federal government might go too far in prosecuting the war on terrorism," Printz provides a circuit-breaker that might allow local and state officials to refuse to enforce regulations curbing individual rights. Moreover, "[b]y denying the means of commandeering to the federal government, the courts have created an incentive [for Congress] to adopt policies that inspire [rather than demand] compliance, thus preserving a beneficial structural safeguard for individual rights," and "state and local government autonomy can exert pressure on the federal government to moderate its efforts and take care not to offend constitutional rights."
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 521
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume