jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,929
Yeah....the OPPOSITE happened. The state law didn't "stop the entire process." The feds are still free to go into Chicago and do as they please. All that is stopped is STATE employees are prevented from participating. Imagine a state passing a law that says "Local police are no longer allowed to assist in enforcing federal gun laws." That actually WOULD be constitutional. The Supreme Court has long held that the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal laws. The only time that was a thing was the "fugitive slave laws" and the constitutionality of those laws were always questionable. (The morality was not in question as they were clearly immoral).
I pulled this up through Chatgpt with the prompt "What is the ruling that the federal government cannot force a state to enforce a federal law?"
Printz v. United States
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot compel state officers to enforce or implement federal regulatory programs—this would violate the Tenth Amendment.
Background:
The case involved the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. Sheriffs in Montana and Arizona challenged the law, arguing that it unconstitutionally commandeered state officials.
Ruling (Justice Scalia, majority):
This doctrine is known as the anti-commandeering principle. It stems from the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government.
