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.
Aliases (1)
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
→
NFIB v. Sebelius → |
| concurrenceBy |
Clarence Thomas
→
|
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved |
Necessary and Proper Clause
→
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution → |
| country |
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 → 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
→
|
| 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 (7)
| Subject (surface form when different) | Predicate |
|---|---|
|
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
→
|
constitutionalChallenge |
|
Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, et al. v. United States
→
|
hasShortTitle |
|
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
→
|
keyCase |
|
New York v. United States (1992)
("Printz v. United States (1997)")
→
|
laterCitedIn |
|
Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana
→
|
notableCourtCase |
|
Jay Printz
→
|
participantIn |
|
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
("Printz v. United States (1997)")
→
|
relatedPrecedent |