New York v. United States (1992)
E13964
New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
Aliases (3)
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Tenth Amendment case
→
United States Supreme Court case → federalism case → landmark Supreme Court case → |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
→
federalism → separation of powers → |
| category |
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
→
United States Supreme Court cases on federalism → |
| challengedProvision |
take-title provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
→
|
| chiefJusticeAtTime |
William H. Rehnquist
→
|
| citation |
505 U.S. 144
→
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution
→
Spending Clause of the United States Constitution → Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution → |
| country |
United States
→
|
| court |
Supreme Court of the United States
→
|
| decisionDate |
1992
→
|
| doctrineEstablished |
modern anti-commandeering doctrine
→
|
| fullCaseName |
New York, et al. v. United States, et al.
→
|
| holding |
Congress may not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program
→
the federal government cannot commandeer the legislative processes of the states → |
| impact |
limited Congress’s ability to force states to administer federal programs
→
strengthened state sovereignty against federal mandates → |
| jurisdiction |
United States federal courts
→
|
| languageOfProceeding |
English
→
|
| laterCitedIn |
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018)
→
Printz v. United States (1997) → |
| legalIssue |
Tenth Amendment limits on federal authority
→
anti-commandeering doctrine → scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause → |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
→
|
| partyType |
federal government as defendant
→
state as plaintiff → |
| petitioner |
State of New York
→
|
| principle |
Congress may encourage but not compel state regulation
→
federal government must regulate individuals directly rather than commandeer states → |
| reasoning |
Tenth Amendment confirms that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people
→
commandeering blurs political accountability between state and federal officials → |
| relatedStatute |
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
→
|
| respondent |
United States of America
→
|
| result |
other incentive provisions of the Act upheld
→
take-title provision held unconstitutional → |
| voteSplit |
6–3
→
|
Referenced by (6)
| Subject (surface form when different) | Predicate |
|---|---|
|
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
→
|
associatedCourtCase |
|
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985
("New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)")
→
|
challengedIn |
|
New York v. United States (1992)
("New York, et al. v. United States, et al.")
→
|
fullCaseName |
|
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
→
|
keyCase |
|
Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, et al. v. United States
("New York v. United States")
→
|
relatedCase |
|
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
→
|
relatedPrecedent |