Printz v. United States

E13965

Tenth Amendment case United States Supreme Court case anti-commandeering doctrine case federalism case

Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Printz v. United States canonical	8
Printz v. United States (1997)	7

Statements (50)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Tenth Amendment case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ anti-commandeering doctrine case ⓘ federalism case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	United States federalism ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ
arguedDate	1996-12-03 ⓘ
background	challenged interim provisions of the Brady Act requiring local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks on handgun purchasers ⓘ
citation	521 U.S. 898 ⓘ
citedIn	Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) ⓘ surface form: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association NFIB v. Sebelius ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Clarence Thomas ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInvolved	Necessary and Proper Clause ⓘ Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1997-06-27 ⓘ
decisionType	majority decision with dissents ⓘ
dissentBy	David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
docketNumber	95-1478 ⓘ
effect	limited Congress's ability to require state executive officials to carry out federal law ⓘ
fullCaseName	Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, et al. v. United States ⓘ
holding	Congress may not commandeer state or local executive officials to implement federal regulatory programs ⓘ provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring state and local chief law enforcement officers to conduct background checks are unconstitutional ⓘ
issue	whether Congress may compel state and local executive officials to administer a federal regulatory program ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ surface form: Sandra Day O'Connor William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
jurisdiction	appellate jurisdiction from lower federal courts ⓘ
language	English opinion ⓘ
legalDoctrine	anti-commandeering doctrine ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Antonin Scalia ⓘ
petitioner	Jay Printz ⓘ
petitionerOccupation	Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana ⓘ
precedentFor	limiting federal power over state executive officials ⓘ
rearguedDate	1997-01-14 ⓘ
reinforces	New York v. United States (1992) anti-commandeering principle ⓘ
relatedStatute	Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
respondent	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
result	Brady Act interim background check mandate on state officers invalidated ⓘ
subjectMatter	federalism and separation of powers ⓘ gun control background checks ⓘ
volume	521 ⓘ
vote	5-4 ⓘ
year	1997 ⓘ

Referenced by (15)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution → keyCase → Printz v. United States ⓘ

New York v. United States (1992) → laterCitedIn → Printz v. United States ⓘ

this entity surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) → relatedPrecedent → Printz v. United States ⓘ

subject surface form: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

this entity surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)

Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, et al. v. United States → hasShortTitle → Printz v. United States ⓘ

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act → constitutionalChallenge → Printz v. United States ⓘ

Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana → notableCourtCase → Printz v. United States ⓘ

Jay Printz → participantIn → Printz v. United States ⓘ

Rehnquist Court → landmarkDecision → Printz v. United States ⓘ

United States Supreme Court cases → hasPart → Printz v. United States ⓘ

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment. → relatedPrecedent → Printz v. United States ⓘ

subject surface form: The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment

this entity surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)

PASPA was struck down as unconstitutional. → relatedCase → Printz v. United States ⓘ

subject surface form: PASPA was struck down as unconstitutional

this entity surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)

Brady Act → constitutionalChallengeCase → Printz v. United States ⓘ

subject surface form: Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law → articulatedIn → Printz v. United States ⓘ

subject surface form: anti-commandeering doctrine

this entity surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)

anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law → extendedIn → Printz v. United States ⓘ

subject surface form: anti-commandeering doctrine

this entity surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)

anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law → hasKeyCase → Printz v. United States ⓘ

subject surface form: anti-commandeering doctrine

this entity surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)