Printz v. United States
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Printz v. United States'', 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a
United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal governmen ...
.


Background


The Gun Control Act of 1968

The
Gun Control Act of 1968 The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) is a U.S. federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms ownership. Due to constitutional limitations, the Act is primarily based on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally ...
(GCA), Pub. L 90-618 and subsequent amendments established a detailed Federal program governing the distribution of firearms. The GCA prohibited firearms ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety: convicted felons, convicted misdemeanor domestic violence or stalking offenders, persons with an outstanding felony warrant, fugitives from justice, unlawful aliens, persons with court-mandated protective orders issued against them, persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, adjudicated mentally ill by a court, and others. Persons disqualified from firearms ownership for mental health reasons can apply to have this disability removed. States that do not maintain an application process to allow persons disqualified for mental health reasons to obtain relief from firearms prohibition face Justice Assistance Grant penalties. Section 105 of th
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
(NIAA), cited as Pub. L. 110–180, § 105, provides for restoration of firearm ownership rights in mental health cases. Under NIAA it is up to each U.S. state to come up with its own application process; thus the procedure to regain one's rights varies from state-to-state.


The Brady Act

On November 30, 1993, President
Bill Clinton William Jefferson Clinton ( né Blythe III; born August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd president of the United States from 1993 to 2001. He previously served as governor of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and agai ...
signed into law the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103–159, amending the 1968 Gun Control Act. This "Brady Bill" required the
United States Attorney General The United States attorney general (AG) is the head of the United States Department of Justice, and is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government of the United States. The attorney general serves as the principal advisor to the p ...
to establish an electronic or phone-based background check to prevent firearms sales to persons already prohibited from owning firearms. This check, entitled the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), went into effect as required on November 30, 1998.


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 transfer 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 "make a reasonable 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 Sheriffs Jay Printz and
Richard Mack Richard Ivan Mack (born December 27, 1952) is the former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona and a political activist. He is known for his role in a successful lawsuit brought against the federal government of the United States which alleged that ...
, the Chief Law Enforcement Officers for
Ravalli County, Montana Ravalli County is a county in the southwestern part of the U.S. state of Montana. As of the 2020 census, the population was 44,174. Its county seat is Hamilton. Ravalli County is part of a north–south mountain valley bordered by the Sapphir ...
, and
Graham County, Arizona Graham County is a county in the southeastern part of the U.S. state of Arizona. As of the 2020 census, the population was 38,533, making it the third-least populous county in Arizona. The county seat is Safford. Graham County composes the ...
, represented by Stephen Halbrook and
David T. Hardy David T. Hardy (born February 25, 1951) is an American private attorney 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 ...
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

On May 16, 1994, United States District Judge Charles C. Lovell granted the Sheriff declaratory judgment, finding that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks violated the
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal governmen ...
, but also concluding that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. On June 29, 1994, United States District Judge
John Roll John McCarthy Roll (February 8, 1947 – January 8, 2011) was a United States district judge who served on the United States District Court for the District of Arizona from 1991 until his murder in 2011, and as chief judge of that court from 20 ...
reached the same conclusion. Those judgments were reversed on September 8, 1995, by
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in case citations, 9th Cir.) is the U.S. federal court of appeals that has appellate jurisdiction over the U.S. district courts in the following federal judicial districts: * District ...
Judge
William C. Canby Jr. William Cameron Canby Jr. (born May 22, 1931) is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting in Phoenix, Arizona. As both a professor at Arizona State University College of Law and ...
, joined by Judge Herbert Choy, over the dissent of Judge Ferdinand Francis Fernandez. The Second Circuit also rejected a sheriff's challenge to the mandate, but the
Fifth Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (in case citations, 5th Cir.) is a United States federal court, federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the United States district court, district courts in the following United Stat ...
found that the mandate was unconstitutional, creating a circuit split.''The Supreme Court, 1996 Term — Leading Cases''
111 Harv. L. Rev. 207 (1997).


Supreme Court

The Montana and Arizona Sheriffs’ petition for a writ of
certiorari In law, ''certiorari'' is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. ''Certiorari'' comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of ...
was granted and one-hour of oral arguments were heard on December 3, 1996, where Hallbrook appeared for the sheriffs and
Walter E. Dellinger III Walter Estes Dellinger III (May 15, 1941 – February 16, 2022) was an American attorney and legal scholar who served as the Douglas B. Maggs Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law. He also led the appellate practice at O'Melveny & My ...
, the acting Solicitor General of the United States, appeared for the Government.


Opinion of the Court

On June 27, 1997, the last day of the term, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice
Antonin Scalia Antonin Gregory Scalia (; March 11, 1936 – February 13, 2016) was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016. He was described as the intellectu ...
, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist alongside Justices
Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor (born March 26, 1930) is an American retired attorney and politician who served as the first female associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 to 2006. She was both the first woman nominated and th ...
, Anthony Kennedy, and
Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to succeed Thurgood Marshall and has served since 199 ...
found that the Brady Act's attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal governmen ...
. In writing for the majority opinion of the Court, Justice Scalia stated 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

Founding era Acts of Congress imposing obligations on state judges are not evidence of federal power over state officials because, according to the Court, the Madisonian Compromise had agreed to leave the creation of lower federal courts optional. The Court rejected the Government's argument that Federalist No. 36, Federalist No. 45, and Federalist No. 27 anticipated that Congress would "make use" of state officials. Rather, the Court viewed “almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice” as strong evidence that Congressmen did not think they had the power to command state officials.


The structure of the Constitution

The Court explained that
federalism in the United States Federalism in the United States is the constitutional division of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, ...
is based upon "
dual sovereignty The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: ''" r shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of Capital punishment, life or Amputation#Criminal penalty, ...
", quoting Federalist No. 39's assurance that states retain "a residual and inviolable sovereignty". The Court stated that the Framers designed the Constitution to allow Federal regulation of international and interstate matters, not internal matters reserved to the State Legislatures. The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials. The Court quoted
Federalist No. 51 Federalist No. 51, titled: "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments", is an essay by James Madison, the fifty-first of ''The Federalist Papers''. This document was published ...
’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." The Court concluded 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 identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional
separation of powers Separation of powers refers to the division of a state's government into branches, each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities, so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of the other branches. The typic ...
by robbing the
President of the United States The president of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America. The president directs the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United Stat ...
of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "
unitary executive theory The unitary executive theory is a theory of United States Constitution, United States constitutional law which holds that the President of the United States possesses the power to control the entire federal executive branch. The doctrine is root ...
". 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 Federalist No. 70, titled "The Executive Department Further Considered", is an essay written by Alexander Hamilton arguing for a single, robust executive provided for in the United States Constitution.Hamilton, Alexander, et al. The Federalist ...
'' (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 Court applied its past jurisprudence. The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in ''
New York v. United States ''New York v. United States'', 505 U.S. 144 (1992), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the federal government may not require states to “take title” to radioact ...
'' (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials. Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly. As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional. Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, alone, highlighting that the Court's holding left local Chief Law Enforcement Officers free to voluntarily comply with the federal mandate. Justice Thomas also added a concurrence, alone, clarifying that, in his opinion, Congress's interstate Commerce Clause powers do not apply to purely intrastate firearms transfers. Thomas went on to encourage the Court to someday consider the “colorable argument” that the
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the Right to keep and bear arms in the United States, right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Un ...
grants individuals a personal right to own firearms.


Dissents

Justice
John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens (April 20, 1920 – July 16, 2019) was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1975 to 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the second-oldes ...
, joined by Justices David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Joan Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( ; ; March 15, 1933September 18, 2020) was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1993 until her death in 2020. She was nominated by President ...
, and
Stephen Breyer Stephen Gerald Breyer ( ; born August 15, 1938) is a retired American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1994 until his retirement in 2022. He was nominated by President Bill Clinton, and repl ...
, respectfully dissented. Justice Stevens suggested the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, giving the Federal government the right to regulate handgun sales, can be coupled with the
Necessary and Proper Clause The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution: Since the landmark decision '' McCulloch v. Maryland'', the US Supreme Court has ruled that this clause gr ...
, giving Congress the power to pass whatever laws are necessary and proper to carry out its previously enumerated power. The Tenth Amendment, Stevens explained, contains no additional limitations on federal power, serving merely to clarify that the Government has only those powers granted by the Constitution. Stevens extolled the benefits of cooperative federalism. 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 was very concerned with the ability of the federal government to respond to a national emergency and did 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." Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion alone, emphasizing that he read Federalist No. 27 as providing ample evidence that the Framers’ original intent was to require states to act as auxiliaries of the Federal government. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Stevens, using international
comparative law Comparative law is the study of differences and similarities between the law (legal systems) of different countries. More specifically, it involves the study of the different legal "systems" (or "families") in existence in the world, including the ...
to observe that the
federalism Federalism is a combined or compound mode of government that combines a general government (the central or "federal" government) with regional governments (Province, provincial, State (sub-national), state, Canton (administrative division), can ...
found in many foreign countries gives the central government some authority over sub-national jurisdictions.


Subsequent developments

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' rights and the New Federalism. Professor Ann Althouse has suggested that ''Printz'' applies to the
U.S. government response to the September 11 attacks After all of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. government responded with immediate action (including rescue operations at the site of the World Trade Center and grounding civilian aircraft), and long-term action, including investigation ...
because "state and local government autonomy can exert pressure on the federal government to moderate its efforts and take care not to offend constitutional rights."Althouse, ''The Vigor of the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine in Times of Terror''
69 Brook. L. Rev. 1231 (2004).
In ''
District of Columbia v. Heller ''District of Columbia v. Heller'', 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service i ...
'' (2008), the Court adopted the suggestion from Justice Thomas's concurrence that the Constitution grants individuals a personal right to own firearms.


See also

*''
United States v. Lopez ''United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr.'', 514 U.S. 549 (1995), was a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Commerce Clause. It was the first case since 1937 in which the Court held that Congress had exceeded its power ...
'' (1995) (finding that Congress has no Commerce Clause power over bringing guns near school zones) * 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


References


External links

* *
Note in Columbia Law Review distinguishing conditional preemption vs. commandeeringVery thorough analysis of the case
{{US10thAmendment 1997 in United States case law United States federal firearms case law United States Tenth Amendment case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court