anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law

E403290

United States constitutional law concept constitutional law doctrine federalism doctrine

The anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law is a principle derived from the Tenth Amendment that prohibits the federal government from requiring state or local officials to implement or enforce federal regulatory programs.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine	2
anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law canonical	1

Statements (47)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States constitutional law concept ⓘ constitutional law doctrine ⓘ federalism doctrine ⓘ
allows	states to decline to enforce federal law ⓘ states to refuse to implement federal regulatory programs ⓘ
appliesTo	state and local law enforcement officials ⓘ state executive officials ⓘ state legislatures ⓘ
articulatedIn	Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) ⓘ New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ Printz v. United States ⓘ surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)
basedOn	Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
category	United States constitutional law ⓘ United States federal system ⓘ surface form: United States federalism
clarifiedIn	Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) ⓘ
constitutionalSource	Tenth Amendment reservation of powers to the states and the people ⓘ
developedIn	Supreme Court of the United States case law ⓘ
distinguishedFrom	federal preemption doctrine ⓘ
doesNotProhibit	federal government from offering incentives to states ⓘ federal government from preempting conflicting state laws ⓘ federal government from regulating private individuals directly ⓘ
extendedIn	Printz v. United States ⓘ surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)
firstClearlyRecognizedIn	New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ
hasKeyCase	Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) ⓘ New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ Printz v. United States ⓘ surface form: Printz v. United States (1997)
interpretedBy	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
invokedIn	litigation over environmental regulation programs ⓘ litigation over federal gun control enforcement ⓘ litigation over federal immigration enforcement ⓘ litigation over sports betting regulation ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
justifiedBy	separation of federal and state spheres of authority ⓘ structural principles of the Constitution ⓘ
limits	scope of federal power over state governments ⓘ
opposes	federal conscription of state executive processes ⓘ federal conscription of state legislative processes ⓘ
prohibits	federal government from commandeering state officials ⓘ federal government from compelling state legislatures to enact federal regulatory schemes ⓘ federal government from conscripting state executive officials to enforce federal law ⓘ federal government from issuing direct orders to state governments ⓘ federal government from requiring state officials to administer federal programs ⓘ
protects	political accountability of federal and state governments ⓘ state sovereignty ⓘ
relatedTo	dual sovereignty ⓘ federalism in the United States ⓘ
supports	system of dual political accountability ⓘ

Referenced by (3)

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

Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana → associatedLegalDoctrine → anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law ⓘ

Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act → constitutionalIssue → anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law ⓘ

this entity surface form: Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine

PASPA → heldUnconstitutionalUnder → anti-commandeering doctrine in United States constitutional law ⓘ

this entity surface form: Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine